P. Sherin Abdulla v. Union of India and Lakshadweep Administration

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2016-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Petition allowed; Ext.P3 circular blacklisting the petitioner is quashed.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition allowed; Ext.P3 circular quashed. Petitioner may pursue registration afresh with Lakshadweep Administration's PWD Department if desired.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Sherin Abdulla

Respondents

Union of India, rep. by Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep
Director (General of Administration & Protocol), Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M. P. Krishnan Nair
• Sri. V. B. Narayanan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, SC, Lakshadweep Administration
• Sri. Shafik M. Abdulkhadir, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

P. Sherin Abdulla, a PWD contractor with Lakshadweep Administration, challenged Ext.P3, a circular dated 16 April 2007 that blacklisted him following registration of a CBI case against him on 20 August 2005. The petitioner contends that the ground for blacklisting cited in Ext.P3 did not exist at the time it was issued and that the CBI proceedings referenced were not properly detailed or even properly identified in the pleadings, with alleged mismatches in case numbers. He asserts that he had no knowledge of any CBI case against him and that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before blacklisting. The respondents, through counter-affidavits, claim the blacklisting was based on the CBI case and that Ext.P3 was issued in the ordinary course of administrative policy to bar business dealings with the petitioner; however, they fail to provide consistent, precise particulars about the case numbers in Ext.P3 and the counter affidavit. The court relies on the principle of natural justice, notably the audi alteram partem doctrine, as enshrined in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 266), to hold that Ext.P3 cannot be sustained for want of due process. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is quashed; the petitioner may pursue registration afresh with the Lakshadweep Administration’s PWD Department if so advised.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem)
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 266)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P3 is grounded on a CBI investigation that either did not exist at the time of issue or was not properly identified; he asserts that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before blacklisting and that the circular lacks precise details about the CBI case numbers, rendering the action arbitrary. He relies on the principle of natural justice, as articulated in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), to argue that the state must provide a hearing prior to prejudicial actions. He further points to inconsistencies in the referenced CBI cases and a lack of due process in Ext.P3.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the blacklisting was based on a CBI case against the petitioner and meant to prevent him from entering into government contracts. They rely on counter-affidavits stating that a CBI case existed and that Ext.P3 was issued in the ordinary course of administrative procedure; however, they do not provide complete, precise case-numbers in Ext.P3 or in the counter-affidavits.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
M/s.Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another	AIR 1975 SC 266	Positive	Cited to establish that due process and an opportunity to be heard are essential before taking prejudicial action like blacklisting.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 14749 of 2007 (E) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **P. SHERIN ABDULLA, S/O.UMMER KUTTY HAJI, PARAKKOTT HOUSE, VELLIYANCHERY P.O., MELATTUR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 326.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, (SECRETARIAT), KAVARATTI, PIN-682 555.** **2. DIRECTOR (GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION & PROTOCOL), UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, (SECRETARIAT), KAVARATTI-682 555.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,** **SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION SRI.SHAFIK M.ABDULKHADIR,SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 14749 of 2007 (E)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** |**P1:**|**COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE F.NO.2/8/1552/98-**| |---|---| ||**AB2 DATED 2/9/1998 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,**| ||**LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION.**| |**P1(a):**|**COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE NO.LHW/EE/AND/DB-**| ||**138/891 DATED 4/9/1996 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE**| ||**ENGINEER, LAKSHADWEEP.**| |**P2:**|**COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN**| ||**MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 13/4/2007.**| |**P3:**|**COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 16/4/2007 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :**<br>**NIL.**|| ||**//TRUE COPY//**| ||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| **bp** ## C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C)No.14749 of 2007 ======================= Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner who was a PWD Contractor with Lakshadweep Administration filed this Writ Petition on being aggrieved by Ext.P3 circular dated 16.04.2007. As per Ext.P3, citing the reason that the Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case against the petitioner on 20.08.2005 in connection with supply of construction materials the respondents have decided to blacklist the petitioner consequently, he was blacklisted. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 and seeking further consequential reliefs. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The core contention of the petitioner is that the reason cited in Ext.P3 to blacklist him was not actually W.P.(C)No.14749 of 2007 2 existing or existed at the time when it was passed. It is contended that though the CBI registered cases against the petitioner on 20.04.2005 as R.C. 6(A)105 and 7(A)105/CBI/Ker after the preliminary investigation itself finding that there is absolutely no basis for the complaint without any further investigation they were closed without any further action. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was blacklisted in view of the fact that a case was registered against him by the CBI as Case No.RC 20(A) 2005/CBI/KER dated 20.08.2005. It is relevant to note that there is conspicuous absence of any reference with respect to the cases made mention of, by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, in the said counter affidavit. This assumes relevance in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed a reply affidavit in this writ petition refuting the registration of such a case against him. It is specifically stated in paragraph 6 therein that he was absolutely unaware of registration of any case against him as Case No.RC20(A) 2005/CBI/KER W.P.(C)No.14749 of 2007 3 dated 20.08.2005. According to the petitioner CBI had registered cases with numbers specifically mentioned in paragraph 4 against him and after preliminary investigation, those cases were subsequently dropped. True that in Ext.P3 circular dated 16.04.2007 also after referring to a CBI case registered on 20.08.2005 against the petitioner herein all concerned were requested to ensure that no business dealing with him and his firms would be carried out under Lakshadweep Administration. But, at the same time, it is to be noted that either in Ext.P3 circular or in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the details regarding the case No.RC 20(A)2005/CBI/KER dated 20.08.2005 which was allegedly registered against the petitioner by CBI are lacking. It is also to be noted that despite the receipt of the reply affidavit the respondents had not filed any additional counter affidavit explaining whether the case registered against the petitioner is actually one with No.RC 20(A)/2005/CBI/KER dated 20.08.2005 or whether the cases registered against him were R.C.6(A)105 and 4 W.P.(C)No.14749 of 2007 7(A)105/CBI/Ker. As stated hereinbefore the petitioner has very specifically stated in the reply affidavit that he was absolutely unaware about the registration of any case against him by the CBI with No.RC 20(A)/2005/KER dated 20.08.2005. Even when this matter is taken up for hearing the respondents are not in a position to give the details regarding such a case. In such circumstances, and also taking note of the absence of details either in Ext.P3 or in the counter affidavit regarding the same it can only be taken that mentioning of the number of the case registered by CBI against the petitioner as aforesaid is nothing but a mistake. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in **M/s.Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another (AIR 1975 SC 266)** . In the said decision the Apex Court held that before blacklisting a contractor with Government, principles of natural justice has to be complied with and for complying the same the person to be placed in the blacklist should be afforded with an opportunity of being W.P.(C)No.14749 of 2007 5 heard. This assumes relevance in view of the specific statement made by the petitioner in the reply affidavit that he was not made aware of registration of the case with No.RC 20(A)2005/CBI/KER dated 20.08.2005 and at any rate, he was not afforded with any opportunity before blacklisting him based on the registration of such a case if at all any such was registered. It is to be noted that the respondents have no such contentions that the petitioner was afforded with such an opportunity. In the said circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in **M/s.Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another (supra)** Ext.P3 circular cannot be sustained as it was issued without complying with the principles of natural justice. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering in to lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gain. In Erusian's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that when the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. Consequently, 6 W.P.(C)No.14749 of 2007 this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 circular blacklisting the petitioner is quashed. In such circumstances, in case the petitioner is desirous to get registered with the Lakshadweep Administration in its PWD Department, as a contractor he may move them appropriately. Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE MJL