PETITIONER:
RAGHUNATH THAKUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/11/1988
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
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.
HEADNOTE:
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]
JUDGMENT:
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.