Savitrimai S.B. Seva Sahakari Sanstha Through Its Program Manager Akash Ramesh Nagare vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Original PDF →

WP/1339/2024HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM03001554202411 June 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHAT,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NEERAJ P. DHOTE2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The Petitioner, Savitrimai S.b. Seva Sahakari Sanstha, a Co-operative Society, responded to a tender issued by Respondent No. 3 for manpower supply for hospital cleaning. The Petitioner was awarded the work on 27.04.2018. The Petitioner raised a query with Respondent No. 3 regarding the exclusion of GST from the amount mentioned in the Work Order. Respondent No. 3, by an impugned communication dated 14.05.2018, blacklisted the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged this blacklisting order, arguing it was passed without an opportunity of hearing.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order blacklisting the Petitioner was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was found that before passing the order, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, which was not done. Consequently, the impugned communication was quashed and set aside. The Court's reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the order was silent regarding any hearing granted to the Petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that any order adversely affecting a party, such as blacklisting, must be preceded by a fair hearing. The Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order blacklisting the Petitioner is bad in law for being passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? The Petitioner argued that the action of blacklisting was taken without providing any opportunity of hearing, rendering the impugned order illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. The contesting Respondents (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) did not dispute that the impugned order was silent on whether the Petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before its issuance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 902WP1339.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 WRIT PETITION NO. 1339 OF 2024 Savitrimai S.b. Seva Sahakari Sanstha Through Its Program Manager Akash Ramesh Nagare VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others ... Mr. A. D. Sonkawade h/f Mr. Rajesh H. Mewara - Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. S. Patil – Addl.G.P. for Respondent/State Mr. Dnyaneshwar S. Bagul – Advocate for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Nandkumar Jiwade h/f Mr. V. S. Bedre – Advocate for Respondent No. 4 ... CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2025 PER COURT : - 1. The Petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society, had responded to the tender issued by Respondent No. 3 for the supply of manpower for outsourcing the cleaning work of the Hospitals. The Petitioner was allotted the said work by a Work Order dated 27.04.2018, which is annexed as Exhibit ‘C’ to the present Petition. According to the Petitioner, the amount mentioned in the Work Order should have been excluded from GST and so the Petitioner had raised a query with Respondent No. 3 in respect of GST. However, Respondent No. 3 by the impugned communication dated 14.05.2018, blacklisted the Petitioner. 2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the action of blacklisting of the Petitioner was taken without giving him any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. He submits that, the same be quashed and set aside. 2 902WP1339.2024.odt 3. The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the contesting Respondents, does not dispute that the impugned order is completely silent that the Petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before

passing the said order.

In view of the above, it is needless to state that before passing the impugned order by which the Petitioner-Society has been blacklisted, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, which has not been done in the present case. Hence, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned communication is quashed and set aside.

The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [R. G. AVACHAT] JUDGE

JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/06/2025 18:05:17

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.