# Smt. Rajni Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 256
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-03-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 2004
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rajni-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41575
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-petitioner 'A' level
government Contractor-licence cancelled
without issuing show cause noticewithout disclosing any material defectheld-cancellation will not effect only
present but debar the petitioner for ever
being registered as 'A' level Government
Contractor
forever
entails
civil
consequences can not be black listed
without attending opportunity- order can
not be black listed without foreign
affording opportunity- order quashed.

Held: Para 10

Here in the present case, undisputedly
no opportunity of hearing was given to
the
petitioner
before
cancelling
his
registration as class 'A' contractor and
passing of an order of blacklisting. We
are therefore of the considered opinion
that before passing the impugned order
the opportunity of hearing must have
been afforded to the petitioner as the
impugned
order
leads
to
civil
consequences as this will not only affect
the
petitioner's
registration
with
respondent no.2 but will affect his future
working with various other government
departments, which of course is the
means of livelihood of the petitioner.
Hence the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 266, A.I.R. Suprme
Court 620, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1277,
.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 3707.

## Text

256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

7. For the aforesaid reason, I have
no hesitation in holding that the ratio of
the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari
Bank Ltd (Supra) applies to the facts and
circumstances of this case with full force,
and I have no hesitation in holding that
the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act are not applicable to the employees of
Co-operative Societies Act who are
governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The
impugned award dated 14.4.1993 is
therefore, totally without jurisdiction and
is liable to be set aside.

8. The writ petition is allowed. The
award
dated
14.4.1993
passed
by
respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Allahabad (Annexure 2 to
the writ petition) is set aside.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 2004

Smt. Rajni Chauhan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Pooja Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-petitioner 'A' level
government Contractor-licence cancelled
without issuing show cause noticewithout disclosing any material defectheld-cancellation will not effect only
present but debar the petitioner for ever
being registered as 'A' level Government
Contractor
forever
entails
civil
consequences can not be black listed
without attending opportunity- order can
not be black listed without foreign
affording opportunity- order quashed.

Held: Para 10

Here in the present case, undisputedly
no opportunity of hearing was given to
the
petitioner
before
cancelling
his
registration as class 'A' contractor and
passing of an order of blacklisting. We
are therefore of the considered opinion
that before passing the impugned order
the opportunity of hearing must have
been afforded to the petitioner as the
impugned
order
leads
to
civil
consequences as this will not only affect
the
petitioner's
registration
with
respondent no.2 but will affect his future
working with various other government
departments, which of course is the
means of livelihood of the petitioner.
Hence the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 266, A.I.R. Suprme
Court 620, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1277,
.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 3707.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner is a registered
contractor of category 'A' with the
respondent no.2. She is aggrieved by
order dated 23.1.2004 passed by Regional
Food Controller Agra Division, Agra (the
respondent no.2) by which the petitioner's
registration as Class 'A' contractor has
been cancelled and the petitioner has been
black listed. The impugned order has been
assailed on the ground that the same has
been
passed
without
affording
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
1 All] Smt. Rajni Chauhan V. State of U.P. and others

257
2. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondents. In paragraph 5 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the
petitioner had got herself registered under
category 'A' after concealing material
facts, therefore, it was not necessary to
afford an opportunity before passing the
order dated 23.1.2004.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that had there
been
any
illegality
or
misrepresentation/fraud committed by the
petitioner while obtaining the registration,
it should have been informed to the
petitioner in the form of show cause
notice so that she could rebut the same but
without notice the order should not have
been passed as the cancellation of
registration will affect not only the
present Registration with the respondent
but it will debar the petitioner from being
registered
in
other
government
departments,
which
will
affect
the
livelihood of the petitioner.

4. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the impugned
order, it is apparent that no opportunity of
hearing has been afforded to the petitioner
before cancelling his registration and
passing an order of black listing. This has
also been admitted in the counter affidavit
filed by the State respondents. It is settled
position of law that when an order leads
to civil consequences and the same has
been
passed
without
affording
an
opportunity of hearing that can not be
sustained in the eye of law.

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Union of India and other v. A.K.
Mithiborwala and others A.I.R. 1975
Supreme Court 266 held that:

"12........ The Government cannot
choose
to
exclude
persons
by
discrimination. The order of black-listing
has the effect of depriving a person of
equality of opportunity in the matter of
public contract. A person who is on the
approved list is unable to enter into
advantageous
relations
with
the
Government because of the order of
black-listing. A person who has been
dealing with the Government in the matter
of sale and purchase of materials has a
legitimate interest or expectation. When
the State acts to the prejudice of a person
it has to be supported by legality.
15.The blacklisting order does not
pertain to any particular contract. The
blacklisting
order
involves
civil
consequences. It caste a slur. It creates a
barrier between the persons blacklisted
and the Government in the matter of
transactions.
The
blacklists
are
"instruments of coercion".

7. In the case of Raghunath
Thakur v. State of Bihar and others
A.I.R. Suprme Court 620 the Apex
Court has taken the view that even if rules
do not provide to offer an opportunity of
hearing before passing an order of
Blacklisting then also opportunity of
hearing is necessary before passing the
order which leads to civil consequences.
In paragraph 4 of the judgement it has
been held that:

4.
Indisputably, no notice had been
given to the appellant of the proposal of
blacklisting
the
appellant.
It
was
contended
on
behalf
of
the
State
Government
that
there
was
no
requirement in the rule of giving any
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

prior notice before blacklisting any
person. In so far as the contention that
there is no requirement specifically of
giving any notice is concerned, the
respondent is right. But it is an implied
principle of the rule of law that any order
having civil consequence should be
passed only after following the principles
of natural justice. It has to be realised
that blacklisting any person in respect of
business ventures has civil consequence
for the future business of the person
concerned in any event. Even if the rules
do not express so, it is an elementary
principle of natural justice that parties
affected by any order should have right of
being heard and making representations
against the order. In that view of the
matter, the last portion of the order in so
far as it directs blacklisting of the
appellant in respect of future contracts,
cannot be sustained in law. In the
premises, that portion of the order
directing that the appellant be placed in
the blacklist in respect of future contracts
under the Collector is set aside.

8. In the case of M/s Southern
Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals
Travancore Ltd., and another AIR
1994 Supreme Court 1277 the Apex
court has observed as under:

9.
The deletion of the appellant's name
from the list of approved contractors on
the ground that there were some vigilance
report against it, could only be done
consistent with and after the compliance
of the principles of natural justice. That
not having been done, it requires to be
held that withholding of the tender form
from the appellant was not justified. In
our opinion, the High Court was not
justified in dismissing the writ petition.
9. The same view has been reiterated
by the Apex Court in the case of
Gronsons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.,
and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court
3707.

10. Here in the present case,
undisputedly no opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner before
cancelling his registration as class 'A'
contractor and passing of an order of
blacklisting. We are therefore of the
considered opinion that before passing the
impugned order the opportunity of
hearing must have been afforded to the
petitioner as the impugned order leads to
civil consequences as this will not only
affect the petitioner's registration with
respondent no.2 but will affect his future
working with various other government
departments, which of course is the means
of livelihood of the petitioner. Hence the
impugned order cannot be sustained in the
eye of law.

11. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order
dated
23.1.2004
passed
by
respondent no.2 as annexure -5 to the writ
petition
is
hereby
quashed.
The
respondents are at liberty to proceed in
accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.5023 of 2010

Vimlesh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Party