BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/07/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD).No.11799 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 S.Rajeswaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer, TWAD Board, Southern Region, Madurai. 2.The Superintending Engineer, TWAD Board, S.R.Circle, Sivagangai. 3.The Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, RWS Division, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Lr.No.4342/F.303/DOI/2008-1, dated 13.11.2008 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents... Mr.Pala Ramasamy Special Government Pleader :ORDER
The petitioner challenges the Order of the second respondent dated
13.11.2008, whereby the registration of the petitioner as Class II State Level
Contractor was temporarily suspended until further orders.
2. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that the impugned order is very cryptic and no reason has been stated
in the impugned order, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
3. Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents, produced a Circular dated 09.04.1992, issued by the Tamil Nadu
Water Supply and Drainage Board Secretarial, Madras 5, and submitted that before
issuing show cause notice, the authorities have got right to suspend the
registration of a Contractor, when they are satisfied with the malpractices
committed by the Contractor. Therefore, initially, the second respondent has
issued the suspension order followed by a show cause notice dated 19.11.2008,
wherein, reasons have been stated, and therefore, there is nothing illegal in
the impugned order passed by the second respondent.
4. A perusal of the above Circular would reveal that even for suspending a
Contractor, there must be a prima facie satisfaction by the authority. As per
Clause 4.1 of the above Circular, suspension of business can be ordered by
following the procedure as stated below:-
“Suspension of business may be ordered for an indefinite period where,
pending full enquiry into the allegations, the competent authority is of the
view that it is not desirable that business with the Contractor should continue.
Such an order may be passed if the competent authority is prima facie of the
view that the Contractor is guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude in
relation to business dealings which if established would result in banning
business dealings with the Contractor”.
5. Therefore, it is seen from the above clause that even for suspending a
Contractor, the competent authority must come to a conclusion that it is not
desirable that business with the Contractor should continue. Such an order may
be passed if the competent authority is prima facie of the view that the
Contractor is guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude in relation to
business dealings which if established would result in banning business dealings
with the Contractor. Therefore, the right of the second respondent to suspend
the business is not questioned. But, at the same time, while suspending a
Contractor, the competent authority must have decided that it is not desirable
that business with the Contractor should continue and he must be of the prima
facie view, as stated above. In this case, the impugned order does not disclose
any such thing.
6. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned order dated 13.11.2008 passed by
the second respondent is quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed. However, it
is open to the second respondent to pass orders in accordance with law, if it is
so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
NB
To
1.The Chief Engineer,
TWAD Board,
Southern Region, Madurai.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
TWAD Board,
S.R.Circle, Sivagangai.
3.The Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, RWS Division, Ramanathapuram.