LexSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus BALRAM SAHU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 655 STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. A V. BALRAM SAHU (Civil Appeal No. 444 of 2009) JANUARY 27, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR .. GANGUL Y, JJ.) (OR/SSA) P. W.D. CONTRACTORS REGJSTRA T/ON RULES, 1967: c r. 11 (a) - Cancellation of contractor's licence - Set aside by High Court for non-issuance of notice to contractor - HELD: High Court in its earlier order had specifically directed that before cancellation and forfeiture of security deposit, D notice was to be given - It would be open to State Government to issue a notice in terms of order passed by High Court and decide the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the contractor - Natural Justice. In a writ petition filed by the respondent, the High E Court, on 13.5.2004, directed that without issuing a show cause notice to him and without giving him an opportunity of hearing, his licence as Super Class .A Contractor would not be cancelled. By order dated 7.10.2005 respondent's licence was cancelled under Rule F 11 (a) of P.W.D. Contractors Registration Rules, 1967. The respondent challenged the said order in another writ petition wherein the stand of the appellant- State was that a show cause notice had been issued to the respondents on 21.2.2004. The High Court by its order dated 9.2.2007 G allowed the writ petition holding that after the order dated 13.5.2004 no notice was issued. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeals. 655 H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 1 S.C.R. A Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: The order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the High Court was very specific to the effect that before cancellation and forfeiture of security deposit, notice has 8 to be given. That admittedly has not been done. In the circumstances, the order of the High Court impugned in the instant appeals shall remain operative. It is open to the appellant-State to issue notice in terms of the order passed by the High Court and to decide the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the C respondent. [Para 5) [658-D-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 444 of 2009. 0 From the Judgment and final Order dated 9.02.2007 of the E High Court of Orissa at Cuttak in W.P. (C) No. 13432 of 2005. "' WITH C.A.No 445 of 2009. Siboo Sankar Mishra for the Appellant. Akhilendra K. Mahapatra and Pankaj Kumar Singh for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The controversy in the two appeals lies within a very G narrow compass. Writ Petition No.3445 of 2004 was filed by the respondent before the Orissa High Court, inter-alia, with a prayer that his license as a Super Class Contractor should not be cancelled by the respondent No.2 i.e. Chairman of the Committee of Chief Engineers and Engineers in Chief, Orissa. H The Writ Petition was filed under the apprehension that his STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. v. BALRAM SAHU 657 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] license was likely to be cancelled. The High Court disposed A of the Writ Petition by order dated 13.5.2004 after hearing learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Government Advocate with a direction that without issuing show cause notice to the writ petitioner and without giving him a fair opportunity of hearing, his license as Super Class Contractor shall not be B cancelled and his security deposit shall not be forfeited. 3. Several miscellaneous cases were thereafter filed by the respondents. By order dated 7 .10.2005 the Chairman of the aforesaid Committee directed cancellation of respondent's C license under Rule 11 (a) of P.W.D. Contractors Registration Rules, 1967 (in short the ·Rules'). This was questioned by the respondent by filing a writ petition taking the stand that the order was passed by the Chief Engineer, but no notice was issued prior to passing of the order. The High Court by order dated 9.2.2007 allowed the Writ Petition, quashing several orders D passed on the ground that before the cancellation was done, no notice was given. Reference was made by the present appellants to notice purportedly issued on 21.2.2004. It was stated that before the order was passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.3445/2004, a show cause notice had already E been issued. The respondent filed a rejoinder affidavit taking the stand that after the order was passed on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.