- (1.) We have heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Harshadray A.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vivek B.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.8.2014 brought on record by way of amendment at page 22/C by which the petitioner company has been banned for a period of five years from dealing with the Coal India Limited and its subsidiary companies.
(3.) Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that there is violation of clause 4.7.10 of the Purchase Manual because the show cause notice does not provide for the period for which ban is likely to be imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that there is violation of principles of natural justice because the final order of banning the petitioner has been passed mechanically and without application of mind and it is a carbon copy of the previous show cause notice and, therefore, no consideration has been afforded to its reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the final order is passed in violation of clause 4.7.9 of the Purchase Manual because banning period is dependent upon the gravity of the offence and quantum of loss suffered by the Coal India Limited and its subsidiary companies. He further urged that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as another person has been banned for a period of one year, whereas the petitioner has been banned for a period of five years. However, Mr.Shalin Mehta has very fairly admitted that the person who was banned for a period of one year was not indulged in the case of fraud, but it was the case of misrepresentation. Lastly, he submitted that the Coal India Limited is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the contract with the Coal India Limited constitutes the property and when that right to property is taken by authority of law and if there is violation of the right to property, the petitioner is entitled for the protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The said argument of Mr.Shalin Mehta is based on the recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered on 26.3.2015 in Special Civil Application No.13134 of 2009 (Niko Resources Limited Vs Union of India and another).;