Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237562024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5973/2024 M/S MANAS ENTERPRISE A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LNB ROAD, BIJNI, DISTRICT- CHIRANG (BTR), ASSAM, PIN- 783390, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PABITRA KUMAR DAS. 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. 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) BIJNI CHIRANG ASSAM. 4:THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BIJNI CHIRANG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J PATOWARY, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR ORDER Date : 30.01.2025 Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Chetia, learned Govt. Advocate for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition 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. 3. 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 has submitted bills at rates higher than the empanelled rates of CEO Office and that the petitioner’s firm had submitted bills with inflated quantities. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd of October, 2024, by which the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner’s firm was blacklisted, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ petition. 5. Mr. M. Chetia, learned Govt. Advocate was directed to take instructions as to whether any Show Cause Notice was served on the petitioner prior to the issuance of the order dated 22nd of October, 2024 by which the petitioner’s firm was blacklisted. 6. Today, when the matter is called up, Mr. M. Chetia, learned Govt. Advocate has produced the records, wherein, a Communication dated 14.10.2024, is enclosed which is written by the Junior Assistant, Office of the SDO (Bijni) and addressed to the In-Charge Election Officer, Bijni, wherein, it is stated that the attempt to deliver the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner’s firm was unsuccessful as no recipient of the letter was found. Further another Communication dated 15.10.2024, written by the In-Charge, Election Officer, Bijni and addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Bijni is also enclosed, in the records, wherein, it is also stated that the Junior Assistant, Office of the SDO (C), Bijni had visited the petitioner’s firm to deliver the Show Cause Notice. However, the delivery attempt was unsuccessful as no recipient of the letter was found. Therefore, the notice was hanged on the wall of the premises of the petitioner’s firm in the presence of the In-Charge, Election Officer, Bijni on 15.10.2024. 7. A consideration of the records produced by the learned Govt. Advocate would clearly indicate that the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner prior Page No.# 4/4 to the issuance of the order dated 22nd of October, 2024 was not served on the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principles of natural justice has been violated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd Vs State of West Bengal and Anr reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 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 allegations made against him. In the case in hand, as the Show Cause Notice was not served on the petitioner’s firm, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 22nd of October, 2024 stands vitiated. Accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. 9. The respondents are however given the liberty to proceed against the petitioner, by following the due process of law, if so advised. 10. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant