M/S Vineet Singh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
IN THE HIGH coum- OF JUDICATURE AT aILAspup
WRIT PETITLONJC) No.
f W3 ' < p 1201/4/ (,0 {wk (V x PETITIONER M/s Vineef Singh ConsWucfion Company Pvt LTd., Bilaspur Through ifs Managing Direcfor (Proprie'ror) $2 \()ra>gl iY Smgh rS/o La're Sudhlsh Smgh aged abouf year's resident ? Ham ab» vam é Maharana Pmm'ap Coiony, 1 "UV Vadunandan Nagar, Tifra Disfric'r - Biiaspur (6.6.) Civil & Revenue Disfr'icf Bilaspur.
kEsPONDENTS 1.
Sfa're ChhaHisgar'h, "rhr'ough The Secre'rary, Wa'rer Resources , Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Man'rralaya, Naya Raipur.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Basin, Wafer Resources Deparfmen'i, Bilaspur (C.G.)'
3.
The Superin'rending Engineer, Wafer Resources Depar'rmenf.
Near Nehru Chowk, Biiaspur (C.G.).
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1.
PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (5):- As per the cau5e Ti'rle.
W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (C) No. 1795 of 2014 PETITIONER M/s Vineet Singh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Bilaspur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS State of CG and others Shri Apporv Tripathi counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao Dy. AG and Shri Gary Mukhopadhyaya PL for the respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
O R D E R
(30.4.2015) Challenge in this petition to the order dated 19.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur suspending the A-5 Ciass Registration of the petitioner.
2.
Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner obtained certain construction works including that of construction of Arpa River Flood Protection Wail, Koni and Amamunda Diversion Scheme Construction. As the petitioner failed to carry out the said works, several reminders were issued but in spite extension granted the same could not be completed. Ultimately, on 9.7.2014 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for
M not carrying out the above two works in time mentioning therein as to why its be suspended three years.
Petitioner was also asked to reply to the show cause notice within a period days.
On 23.7.2014 vide Annexure P-8 petitioner submitted the repiy to the show cause notice assigning various reasons for not completing the two works in time.
Main reason assigned by the petitioner was that on account of some mistake in drawing and aiso that the clearance was not given by the forest department, the works could not be carried out in time. 3.
After receiving the reply of the petitioner, in the meeting of Registration Committee on 25.7.2014 it was held that petitioner was at fault for not completing the allotted works in time and a recommendation was made for suspending the registration of the petitioner for two years. On receiving the recommendation Registration Committee vide dated 19.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) registration of the petitioner has been suspended for two years and it is this order which is under challenge herein. 3.
Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:
(i) that impugned totally a non speaking order and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone;
(ii) that neither committee nor engineer-in-chief has considered reply show cause notice submitted by the petitioner on 23.7.2014;
-3- (iii) that the order impugned has been passed on some executive instruction dated 5.8.2013 issued by State Government which applicable case as contract was executed much prior 5.8.2013;
(iv) that impugned has been passed on 19.8.2014 whereas the decision was taken by the engineerin-chief to suspend the license of the petitioner on 9.7.2014 itself, which is evident from the document of Annexure P-22 - the letter addressed by the engineer-in-chief to the nodal officer wherein it categorically mentioned that decision has been taken suspend seven contractors;
(v) that recommendation committee dated 25.7.2014 and the order impugned dated 19.8.2014 are nothing but an eyewash and from the conduct of the respondents it clear that they were biased against the petitioner and that only decision suspend registration of the petitioner was already taken; (vi) that two allegations were levelled against petitioner and out of them one was in relation to the work of Amamunda Diversion Scheme Construction for which petitioner has filed WP No. 90/2015 where this Court has remitted the matter and the same is still pending before the Superintending Engineer whereas the matter in relation to
~ 4 '
[H Arpa River Flood Protection Wall, Koni pending before the Arbitration Tribunal;
(vii) that suspension of registration of the in fact in nature black listing for a temporary period which stigmatic and would come in way petitioner in respect of the works of other departments also. 4'.
The State counsel supports impugned and submits that when failed complete work q within stipulated time, several reminders were issued but even then the works remained incomplete. As even in spite of the reminders and extension time works could be completed by the petitioner, the authorities were left with no other option but suspend after recommendation committee.
State counsel further submits that after due application of mind the authorities have considered the case of the petitioner and when it was found that was at fault, committee recommended for suspension of its registration for a period of two years which ultimately has been affirmed by the engineer-in-chief also.
According to the State counsel, executive instruction dated 5.8.2015 also applicable to the case of the because these are guidelines directing action against erring contractors like the petitioner.
5.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents
./$ ' , Z;
/ on record.
6.
In the reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner, several reasons have been assigned concluding contract within time-frame.
However, committee while considering the case of the petitioner has bothered to consider any of the points raised by the petitioner.
t l Even the reply to the show cause notice submitted by it does n0t appear to have been adverted to by the registration committee a 't l while giving the said recommendation. Likewise, the engineer-inchief also did assign any reason while passing impugned. True it is that the authorities were not required to pass '
a'detailed order but at least it is expected to give certain reasons in support of the conclusion so drawn.
7.
it is a settled legal position that suspension of registration of a period two years involves civil consequences and may cause great prejudice to the petitioner by affecting not only the works of Water Resources Department but that of other departments also. This Court is refraining itself from entering into the point as to how the petitioner could not carry out the works assigned to it. Suffice it to say that the authorities have failed to consider the points raised by the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice;
it ensures transparency and fairness in decision making and most importantly the person adversely affected can come to
know as to why his case has been demolished.
8.
In aforesaid view of the matter, this Court of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainabie in the eye of law and Iiable to be set aside.
Ordered so.
However, Iiberty granted to the State authorities to issue fresh show cause notice if so required or remain stick already issued one.
Petitioner would also be at liberty to me additional reply to the show cause notice, if need be, within the time granted by the authorities concerned.
On all this being done, first the registration committee would consider the case of the petitioner and pass the order in accordance with law.
While passing any order, the engineer-in-chief is expected to give certain reasons in its support.
9.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has already suffered about eight months, it expected from authorities concerned to act promptly and complete all the formalities within a period of two months. Needless to say that while considering the case of the petitioner, the authorities would not be influenced by their previous action.
10.
Petition thus allowed.
Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge