2025:JHHC:13435-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 854 of 2024 M/s ARAV-PFPF (JV), a joint Venture, through its one of the Directors, namely, Milan Parkeria, S/o Pravin Parkeria @ Hiralal Thacker, having office at 3F, Gajraj Chambers, 86 B/2, Topsa Road (S), P.O. & P.S.-Topsa Road, District-Kolkata (West Bengal). ….. Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 2. Director (Technical) Operation, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 3. General Manager (Civil), Civil Engineering Department, HQ, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 4. Chief Manager (Civil), Civil Engineering Department, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 5. General Manager (Finance), Civil Engineering Department, HQ, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 6. Deputy Manager (Civil), Civil Engineering Department, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Md. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate ----- 08/05.05.2025 1. In this writ petition the petitioner assails the action of the respondents- corporation in levying penalty of Rs.1,10,14,676.66/- vide Annexure-20 dated 23.11.2022 with regard to a contract work entrusted to the petitioner through a work order dated 15.01.2015. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that before levying such penalty, no prior show cause notice has been given to the petitioner and no computation as to how such amount of penalty is being levied on the petitioner has also been furnished to him. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is not denied that prior notice was not issued to the petitioner before imposing the said amount as 2025:JHHC:13435-DB penalty on the petitioner, but it is contended that Annexure-B filed along with the counter affidavit has been signed by the petitioner and therefore it is deemed that he has accepted the penalty. 4. We do not accept the said submission. Merely because the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of Annexure-B containing the levy of penalty as aforesaid, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had accepted the liability to pay the penalty. When such a large amount is being levied on the petitioner as a penalty, minimum compliance of the principles of natural justice is required and the failure of the respondents to comply the said principles of natural justice has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents have levied the excess amount of penalty on the petitioner and Annexure-B to that extent is set aside. 6. The respondents shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the basis of calculation of the amount of penalty, which according to them is levied on the petitioner, within four weeks from today. 7. The petitioner is granted four weeks’ time from the date of receipt of the show cause notice to explain and dispute the contents of the show cause notice. 8. A personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner and then a reasoned order shall be passed by the respondents and communicated to the petitioner. 9. The respondents shall also give the calculation to the petitioner along with the show cause notice as to in which manner the penalty being demanded by the petitioner was calculated. 10. The writ petition is allowed as above. 11. No order as to costs. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J) Satish/Vikas/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)