Sunita Parliwal vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sunita Parliwal, proprietor of M/S Mittal Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 21, 2023, passed by the District Collector, Purnea. This order blacklisted her firm. The petitioner contended that the blacklisting order was passed without issuing any notice to her or providing an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The respondents filed a personal affidavit admitting that no notice was provided to the petitioner before the impugned action was taken. The petitioner had also simultaneously approached the concerned statutory authority with her grievance, which was pending consideration. It was also noted that the blacklisting order was reportedly stayed by the statutory authority.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents, in their affidavit, fairly admitted that the petitioner had not been provided with notice before the impugned blacklisting action was taken. The Court also observed that the petitioner had simultaneously approached the concerned statutory authority with her grievance, and this matter was pending consideration. Furthermore, it was reliably learned that the blacklisting order had been stayed by the statutory authority. In light of these facts and circumstances, the Court found that the present writ petition did not survive for consideration. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court again if any adverse order was passed by the statutory authority and if she had no alternative remedy. The Court did not decide on the merits of the blacklisting order itself, as the primary issue was the procedural irregularity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of blacklisting the petitioner's firm by the District Collector, Purnea, dated January 21, 2023, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the blacklisting order was passed without any reason, notice, or hearing, constituting a complete violation of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the principle that any order adversely affecting a party's rights must be preceded by due process. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents, through their affidavit, admitted that the petitioner was not provided notice before the impugned action was taken. However, they also stated that the petitioner had simultaneously approached the concerned statutory authority, and the matter was pending. The respondents did not present any argument against the petitioner's claim of violation of natural justice.