← Library
Madras High CourtWP/8909/2025disposed of

Vee Technologies Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner

2025-03-18Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No.10006 of 2025 VEE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, 4/14, REDDIPATTY ROAD MAMANGAM, SALEM - 636 302.

... Petitioner Vs THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, CHENNAI - 600 025.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the respondent bearing No.113694/Q1/2023 dated 28.11.2024 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.N.G.Niraimathi For Respondent : Mrs.Indhu Bala Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition is filed with a prayer to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent bearing No. 113694/Q1/2023 dated 28.11.2024 and to quash the same.

1/4

2. By the said order, the petitioner has been blacklisted for the reason that the petitioner delayed in executing the earlier work. On perusal of the order and the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is clear that before blacklisting the petitioner, no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity was given.

3. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that it can be seen that in spite of repeated instructions, the petitioner failed to execute the work in time, that is why the petitioner has been blacklisted.

4. As a matter of fact, the scanning was also done erroneously. However, in response to a specific query from this Court as to whether any show cause notice had been given, the learned Additional Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. But upon perusal of the impugned order itself, it is clear that no such show cause notice is referred. Nothing is also mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioner has made a positive assertion that no such show cause notice was given.

5. In view thereof, on the said limited ground, the writ petition deserves 2/4

to be allowed. Whenever orders are passed that can have civil consequences for the petitioner, the same cannot be passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

6. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:- (i) The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 shall be treated as a show cause notice.

(ii) The petitioner will be entitled to submit their objections with reference to the reasons mentioned therein within two weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order. (iii) The respondent shall then consider the objections afresh with an open mind, apply their mind to the objections raised by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

(iv) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

18.03.2025 nsl To THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, CHENNAI - 600 025.

3/4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl 18.03.2025 4/4