Raghunath
Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors [1988] INSC 346 (8 November 1988)
Mukharji,
Sabyasachi (J) Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) Rangnathan, S.
CITATION:
1989 AIR 620 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 867 1989 SCC (1) 229 JT 1988 (4) 728 1988 SCALE
(2)1326
ACT:
Administrative
Law: Black listing--Right to be heard-- Making representation against the
order--Necessity for.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellant has bid in an auction of Beni Country Liquor Shop in the District of Samastipur
and was given the shop being the highest bidder but he failed to deposit the
bid money in time.
The
Collector, Samastipur by an order cancelled the bid and black listed the
appellant. He then moved the High Court against the order of the Collector. The
High Court upheld the order of the Collector.
The
appellant appealed to this Court by special leave.
Disposing
of the appeal, the Court,
HELD:
1. It is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil
consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural
justice.
Black-listing
any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequences for the
future business of the person concerned in any event. [868H; 869A]
2.
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. [869B] In the instant case, that
portion of the order directing that the appellant be placed in the black-list
in respect of future contracts under the Collector is set aside. So far as the
cancellation of the bid of the appellant is concerned, that is not affected.
[869B-C]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4031 of 1988.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 14.4.1988 of the Patna High PG NO 867 PG NO 868
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1923 of 1988.
R.K.
Jain, R.P.Singh and Y.D.Chandrachud for the Appellant.
U.S. Prasad for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave
granted.
The
order dated 25th March,
1988 of the Collector
is under challenge in this appeal. The same reads as follows:
"Shri
Raghu Nath Thakur S/o Late Gorakh Thakur, Village Repura, P.S. Puksha, District
Samastipur had bid for Rs.11,900 (Rupees eleven thousands only) per month Dak
in an auction of Beni Country liquor shop held on 27.3.88 and he as given the
shop of Beni Country liquor but after signing in Bandobasti Register he did not
deposit dak amount.
The
name of Shri Raghu Nath Thakur S/o Late Gorakh Nath Village Repura, P.S. Pusa, Distt.
Samastipur is therefore placed in the black list for future under the orders
passed by the Collector, Samastipur." This order was passed pursuant to
the order of the Collector. The letter dated 25th March, 1988, states as follows:
"The
Collector of the district after perusal of the said office note passed order on
25.3.88 which is produced in verbatim below:
Ist
bidder chunki defaulter hai atah security prapt kar len tatha bhavishya ke liae
Black list karen. " Indisputably, no notice had been given to the
appellant of the proposal of black-listing the appellant. It was contended on
behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of
giving any prior notice before black-listing 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 PG NO 869 principles of natural justice. It has to be realised
that black-listing 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 black-listing 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 black-list
in respect of future contracts under the Collector is set aside. So far as the
cancellation of the bid of the appellant is concerned, that is not affected.
This order will, however, not prevent the State Government or the appropriate
authorities from taking any future steps for blacklisting the appellant if the
Government is so entitled to do so in accordance with law, i.e. giving the
appellant due notice and an opportunity of making representation. After hearing
the appellant, the State Government will be at liberty to pass any order in
accordance with law indicating the reasons therefor. We, however, make it quite
clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of
the allegations made against the appellant. The appeal is thus disposed of.
S . K
. A . Appeal disposed of.
Back