1. Heard.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing the letters dated 8.3.2006 and 11.3.2006 issued on behalf of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's contract to act as a transporting agent was cancelled and he was blacklisted. The petitioner pursuant to the tender issued by the respondent-Food Corporation of India filed his tender to act as a transporting agent. After negotiations the petitioner was selected and an agreement was entered into in that regard for a period of two years.
3. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner's behaviour was not what was expected of a responsible person. He used to threaten, abuse and beat up the officers of the F.C.I, for which a criminal case was ultimately lodged.
4. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he has been acquitted in the said criminal case.
5. Be that as it may, the short issue raised in this writ application is whether a contract duly entered into can be cancelled for reasons de hors. the contract and that too without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The second question is can a person be blacklisted thus denying him future contracts without granting him an opportunity of hearing.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-F.C.I and Shri Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned counsel appearing for the F.C.I fairly states that there are no provisions under the contract where in such a situation, the contract could be rescinded unilaterally and that too without hearing.
7. It is well settled that wherever an action is proposed against a person which has penal consequence, the action must be taken in consonance with the principles of natural justice unless application of the principles of natural justice is expressly or impliedly excluded. Natural justice is now one of the facets of Article 14 of the Constitution. Everybody to which Article 14 applies, in other words, the State or the State instrumentalities must con form to the rule laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution, which includes compliance of the principles of natural justice. It matters little whereas the action is administrative, quasi judicial or judicial. The Apex Court in the case of National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R Ramakrishnan ((1983) 1 SCC 228 : AIR 1983 Supreme Court 75) has held thus:
“There is a peculiar and surprising misconception of natural justice, in some quarters that it is, exclusively, a principle of administrative law. It is not. It is/first a universal principle and therefore, a rule of administrative law. It is that part of the judicial procedure which is imported into the administrative process because of its universality. Courts even more than administrators must observe natural justice.”
8. Further, in the case of E.E & C. Ltd. v. State of W.B ((1975) 1 SCC 70 : AIR 1975 Supreme Court 266) the Apex Court, while dealing with the case of blacklisting of a contractor, has also held that before a person can be blacklisted thus denying future contracts, the principles of natural justice have to be followed. Admittedly, in the present case, neither before cancellation of the contract nor before blacklisting, any show cause notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself against ex parte accusations. The order cancelling the contract as well as the order blacklisting the petitioner are void ab initio. It cannot be sustained in law or in fact and, therefore, they are quashed.
9. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Comments