( 2025:HHC:27807-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 141 of 2021 Decided on: 18.08.2025 Hans Raj Thakur … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. V.B. Verma, Central Government Standing Counsel. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.2.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Subathu, in terms whereof, he was banned with immediate effect to carry out business as contractor in Cantonment Board, Subathu. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was a duly registered contractor with Public Works Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Class-D), was engaged in executing the works of Cantonment Board, Subathu for many years and he executed his work diligently and no complaint at any stage was filed against him. In terms of Annexure P-3, the petitioner was banned from carrying out the business as contractor 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:27807-DB ) in Cantonment Board, Subathu without any show cause and without informing him as to what led to the issuance of this order, which act of the respondent was bad as it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no remiss on the part of the petitioner as far as execution of the work allotted to him were concerned and otherwise also, no punitive order like banning him which has civil consequences could have been passed against the petitioner without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 3. On the other hand, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has referred to the reply filed by the respondents and pointed out that as there were acts of corruption noticed involving certain employees of the Cantonment Board in which the petitioner was also involved, it is in this backdrop that the impugned order was passed by the Board. He submits that even an FIR was registered on 19.4.2017 in which the name of the petitioner was also mentioned and, therefore, as the petitioner was arrested alongwith one of the Junior Engineer of the Cantonment Board, the Board had no option but to pass the said order. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire record. 5. It is not in dispute that the impugned order passed 3 ( 2025:HHC:27807-DB ) against the petitioner by the respondent-Board, was passed without issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner. This means that the petitioner was condemned unheard and no opportunity was granted to him to put forth his case. It is settled law that no order, which has civil consequences, can be passed against a person without providing the person an opportunity of being heard. In fact the law has developed to this extent that even an administrative order which has the traps of deciding the rights of a party has to be passed after adhering to the principles of natural justice. In the present case, obviously the impugned order in terms whereof the petitioner has been banned from carrying out any activity as a contractor in Cantonment Board, Subathu has civil consequences as far as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, this order could not have been passed by the authority without adhering to the principles of natural justice. This Court is not even remotely suggesting that whatever has been stated in the reply by the respondents is not correct but that could have been a very good ground for the issuance of a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to put forth his version as to why he should not be banned but without adhering to the principles of natural justice, such an order could not have been passed. 6. Therefore, in light of the observations made hereinabove, 4 ( 2025:HHC:27807-DB ) this petition succeeds and the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Subathu dated 1.2.2018 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. As the impugned order has been set aside for want of the compliance of the principles of natural justice, it shall be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they intend to take any action against him by adhering to the principles of natural justice. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 18, 2025 (mamta)