Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1796 - HC - Indian LawsBlacklisting of a commercial Firm - petitioner has been debarred for a period of one year from participating directly or indirectly in any work with the MP PWD with immediate effect - HELD THAT:- The blacklisting of a commercial Firm has serious civil consequences and at the same time it affects the reputation of the Firm. In such a situation, the State is expected to proceed with care and responsibility before blacklisting any Firm, as it is a drastic step to be taken against a person. Still further, it is the basic principle of natural justice that the parties who are adversely affected by an order, should have a right of being heard against the same. The Apex Court in the case of CANARA BANK VERSUS VK. AWASTHY [2005 (3) TMI 476 - SUPREME COURT], has held that the natural justice is another name of common sense justice. The Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. The expressions 'natural justice' and 'legal justice' do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS MASOOD AHMED KHAN [2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is laid down that judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. It is further held that insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done as well. Apparently, in the present case, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to blacklisting in respect of which the impugned order has been passed. Further, it does not satisfy the test of being a reasoned speaking order. The present petition is allowed.
|