Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010077992025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2092/2025 M/S MANAS ENTERPRISE AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LNB ROAD, BIJNI, DIST- CHIRANG (BTR), ASSAM, PIN-783390 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PABITRA KUMAR DAS 2: PABITRA KUMAR DAS S/O LATE GHANA KANTA DAS A R/O LNB ROAD P.O. AND P.S.- BIJNI DIST- CHIRANG (BTR) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ELECTION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHIRANG ASSAM P.O.- KAJALGAON DIST- CHIRANG (BTR) 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICEER (CIVIL) BIJNI P.O. AND P.S.- BIJNI DIST- CHIRANG (BTR) ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BIJNI CHIRANG ASSA Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A DASGUPTA, MS. C BARMAN,MS B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 08.02.2025 issued by the Additional District Commissioner, In-charge, Bijni, by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of 3 (three) years. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm dealing in supply of printing and stationary items for Election Department in the State of Assam. By a Notice dated 03.02.2024, issued by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam, the petitioner’s firm along with 70(seventy) others were empanelled in respect of Tender No. ELE.104/2023/98 for election related processing works. Accordingly, the petitioner was required to supply items in the Bijni LAC under 1-Kokrajhar (ST) HPC with regard to the Parliamentary Elections that was held in the year 2024. The petitioner accordingly supplied the required articles and accordingly, the bills submitted by the petitioner were cleared after verification. Page No.# 3/7 4. In the meantime, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bijni/respondent No.3 passed an order on 22nd of October, 2024, blacklisting the petitioner’s firm on the ground that the petitioner’s firm had submitted bills at rates higher than the empanelled rates of the CEO Office and that the petitioner’s firm had submitted bills with inflated quantities. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.10.2024, by which the petitioner firm was blacklisted, the petitioner challenged the same, vide WP(C) 5973/2024. 6. This Court disposed of WP(C) 5973/2024, vide order dated 30.01.2025, by setting aside the blacklisting order dated 22.10.2024, on the ground that no Show-Cause Notice had been served upon the petitioner, prior to the issuance of the blacklisting order. 7. Subsequent to the above facts, the petitioner was served with the Show- Cause Notice dated 01.02.2025, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had submitted bills which were highly inflated and that the quantity of supplied materials was more than the demand made. A Committee was thus formed to scrutinize the bills of the petitioner and the Committee thereafter found that the petitioner intentionally tried to cause loss or misuse of public money and that his bills were significantly higher than the demanded quantities as per the work orders, besides the rates being inflated. 8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner made a reply dated 07.02.2025 to the Show-Cause Notice dated 01.02.2025, wherein he stated that Page No.# 4/7 he was not aware of formation of the Committee which has scrutinized the petitioner’s bill and where there was no empanelled rates available, he provided the market rates. Further the supplies were made as per the quantity demanded. However, the impugned order dated 08.02.2025 was issued blacklisting the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had submitted bills at higher rates than the empanelled rates besides submitting bills with inflated quantities, which was in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the contract. 9. Mr. M. Chetia, leaned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 4 has submitted the copy of the report of the Committee constituted by the State respondents, to verify the bills of the petitioner. Mr. M. Chetia submits that the petitioner was not provided a copy of the Committee report along with the Show-Cause Notice dated 01.02.2025, to enable the petitioner to have made any representation against the Committee report. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. The only question to be decided is whether the petitioner had been given a fair opportunity to be heard, after being given all the required particulars which the respondents were considering, while proposing to take the action of blacklisting against the petitioner. 12. In the case of M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & Another, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70, the Supreme Court Page No.# 5/7 has held that the principles of natural justice has to be complied with and a tenderer who is sought to be blacklisted, is required to be put on notice as regards the allegation made against him. 13. In the case of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, the Supreme Court has held that in order to fulfil the requirement of the principles of natural justice in matters relating to the proposal to blacklist an individual or firm, a Show-Cause Notice would require to meet the following 2 requirements : (i) the material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. The Supreme Court further held that the above 2 conditions, even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice, but if it can be clearly and safely discerned from the reading thereof, the same would be sufficient to meet the above 2 requirements. 14. In the present case, the Show-Cause Notice dated 01.02.2025 shows that the Show-Cause Notice has been issued on the basis of the scrutiny of the petitioner’s bills made by the Committee constituted by the respondents. However, the said Committee report has not been supplied to the petitioner along with the Show-Cause Notice dated 01.02.2025. This is clear from the letter dated BJEL-23/2024/466 dated 23.06.2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Binji to Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate. The said letter dated 23.06.2025 issued by the Additional Page No.# 6/7 Commissioner, Binji is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X. 15. The petitioner in his reply dated 07.02.2025 has specifically stated that he was not aware of the formation of a Committed to scrutiny his bills and that he was not informed about the presence of any technical person for the same. Further, the petitioner provided market rates as per the standard practice for rates not available in the empanelled rates, besides supplying the required quantity. 16. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Gorkha Security Services (supra), the petitioner was to be given the statement of imputations detailing the alleged breaches and defaults he had committed. The materials and grounds which were to be taken into consideration by the respondents had to be furnished to the petitioner, to enable him to make a proper reply to the imputations made against him. In the present case, the Show-Cause Notice and the action of blacklisting the petitioner having been made on the basis of the Committee report, in was incumbent on the respondents to have issued a copy of the Committee report to the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to make a reply to the Committee report. On a bare perusal of the Committee report, this Court finds that only thing that has been stated against the petitioner is as follows : “6. Manas Enterprise : The bills submitted by Manas Enterprise were carefully scrutinized by the committee and the following adjustment were made as per the observation in the Bills”. Page No.# 7/7 17. The above being said, the observations attributed to the Committee, as reflected in the Show-Cause Notice dated 01.02.2025, is not present in the Committee report pertaining to the petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that as the Committee report has not been furnished to the petitioner along with the Show-Cause Notice, prior to taking a decision to blacklist the petitioner, the order blacklisting the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Accordingly the blacklisting order dated 08.02.2025 is hereby set aside. The Committee Report is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-B. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant