Dhirajlal Nagjibhai Gorasiya vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The writ-applicant, Dhirajlal Nagjibhai Gorasiya, operating as M/s. Maruti Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 22, 2019, by Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL) blacklisting the petitioner. The SSNNL order stated that the petitioner had received irregular payments of approximately Rs. 2.47 Crores for construction work under the Executive Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Division No. 2/1, Dhrangadhra, and had not refunded the difference amount. Prior to this, on February 18, 2019, SSNNL had issued a notice to the petitioner seeking an explanation within 3 days as to why their registration should not be blacklisted for receiving irregular payment. The petitioner replied on February 26, 2019, stating that the work was entrusted to R.K. Infra, who later returned the advance payment due to cancellation of the work, and this amount was repaid to SSNNL on December 4, 2018. The petitioner also stated that the amount of Rs. 2,47,30,228/- was deposited in SSNNL's account on December 4, 2018.

Held

The Court held that the writ-application was not maintainable and dismissed it. The Court observed that the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL) should not have passed the impugned order in the first instance, especially when no contract had been awarded to the writ-applicant. The Court noted that the order of blacklisting was passed without the writ-applicant being concerned with the Nigam. Prima facie, it appeared to be a case of a large-scale fraud involving bogus bills and work orders in the petitioner's name, leading to a significant amount being credited to the petitioner's bank account. While the petitioner claimed innocence and prompt refund, the Court found this explanation insufficient at this stage and emphasized the need for thorough investigation. The Court suggested that if the petitioner apprehended that the impugned order would affect payments for other contracts, they should pursue an appropriate legal remedy before the correct forum. The Court also recommended that SSNNL entrust the investigation to an agency like CID Crime, State of Gujarat. The Court explicitly stated that there were highly disputed questions of fact involved, which could not be adjudicated in a writ petition. Therefore, the writ-application was rejected, and the ad-interim relief granted earlier was vacated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order of blacklisting dated February 22, 2019, passed by Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL) is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a proper show-cause notice and an adequate opportunity of hearing before debarment, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of quashing the blacklisting order and the decision to withhold payments, given the petitioner's contention that the entire work was entrusted to a third party (R.K. Infra) and the alleged irregular payment was refunded promptly upon learning of the issue. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the impugned order was passed without issuing a proper show-cause notice for debarment and without granting an opportunity of hearing. The notice dated February 18, 2019, was for blacklisting the registration, not for debarment from ongoing projects. The petitioner relied on the fact that the alleged irregular payment was refunded. The petitioner also argued that the decision to withhold payments was arbitrary. Revenue/State (SSNNL): Contended that the writ-application lacked merit and should be rejected, implying that the petitioner's actions warranted the blacklisting and withholding of payments.