- (1.) This is third round of litigation by the petitioners against blacklisting of petitioner No. 1 on industry basis. The background which gave rise to this writ petition is necessary to be narrated in brief in order to understand the controversy involved herein. The petitioner No. 1 is a proprietorship concern and petitioner No. 2 is proprietor thereof. The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in transportation of petroleum products of Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter in short called as "IOC) after having entered into an agreement with the IOC. For carrying out such job, total 20 tank trucks (in short called as TTs') were used by the petitioners. However, on account of involvement of two TTs, bearing registration Nos. UP 80 BJ 9458 and UP 78 AN 2061, in the alleged malpractice, show-cause notice was issued by the respondent-IOC and an order was passed on 14th September, 2010 blacklisting the petitioner No. 1 on industry basis and forfeiting its security deposit as per Clauses 8.1.1 (b) and (d) of the Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines (in short called as the "Guidelines'). Such order dated 14th September, 2010 was challenged by the petitioners by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58370 of 2010 (M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another v. Union of India and others) on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. After exchange of affidavits and hearing the counsel for the parties, such writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29th October, 2010 directing the respondents-IOC to conduct an enquiry by adopting the principles of natural justice and further the order of blacklisting dated 14th September, 2010 was set aside. The operative part of the order dated 29th October, 2010 is as follows: Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that orders in the nature of punitive were passed against the petitioners the writ petition shall stand allowed. We, therefore, direct the respondent Corporation to conduct an enquiry by adopting principles of natural justice. We also direct the respondents to issue show-cause notices to the petitioners regarding charges of malpractices within two weeks from the date of the judgment made ready and the petitioners are directed to offer their explanations within two weeks thereafter. The enquiry shall be conducted by taking into account the relevant documentary evidence, if any, produced by either side, before the enquiry officer and the said enquiry shall be completed on or before 20.12.2010. In the result, for the aforementioned observations, the impugned orders dated 14.9.2010 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ petitions are allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.
(2.) Pursuant to such order, on 29th November, 2010 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner No. 1 levelling allegations against the petitioner No. 1 in respect of aforesaid two TTs, to which the petitioners submitted a detailed reply dated 7th December, 2010. After conducting an enquiry in the matter, again the respondent-IOC passed an order dated 28th December, 2010 blacklisting the petitioner No. 1 on industry basis and directing for forfeiture of security deposit. Challenging such order dated 28th December, 2010 the petitioners again approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3586 of 2011 (M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another v. Union of India and others, 2012 AIR(All) 82). In such writ petition, after considering the materials on record, submissions made by the parties and the case laws cited at the bar, a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) was pleased to dispose of the writ petition under the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2011 when did not find complicity of carrier/ transporter with regard to involvement of TTs and directed the authority concerned to complete the further enquiry with regard to involvement of TT crew i.e. driver, helper, etc. to come to a finding about the complicity of the carrier/transporter. The operative part of the judgment dated 10th May, 2011 is as under: In this case, we do not find any description of enquiry with regard to TT crew. Without any enquiry/investigation with regard to TT crew i.e. driver, helper, etc., it is very difficult for the Court to come to a definite conclusion with regard to complicity of the carrier/ transporter. Grammatically, complicity is involvement with other people in an illegal activity or plan; a state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. Clause 8.1.1(c) of the Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines speaks that in case of proven malpractice the entire contract will be terminated and their all TTs shall be blacklisted on industry basis. Hence, a definite conclusion with regard to involvement of the carrier/ transporter in the malpractice is required to be arrived at. In such type of cases, a specific finding is needed with regard to complicity of the crew i.e. driver, helper, etc. independent of involvement of the carrier/ transporter, otherwise cloud about the involvement of the carrier/ transporter cannot be dispelled. In other words, whether their involvement is independent of carrier/ transporter or dependent upon carrier/ transporter, is to be seen, particularly when we find that the authority, in the report, has come to a conclusion that the transporter in its reply was not able to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding tampering of the locking system and variation in the density of the product at the destination. Against this background, we are of the view that order of blacklisting of the transport vehicles on industry basis cannot be withdrawn at this stage but subject to further enquiry by the authority with regard to involvement of the TT crew i.e. driver, helper, etc. to come to a finding about the complicity of the carrier/ transporter. At the time of enquiry, concerned enquiry officer will be very careful with regard to the observations of this Court about complicity of the carrier/transporter. Thus, the writ petition is treated to be disposed of with a direction upon the authority concerned to complete the further enquiry and pass a final order in this respect preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. No order is passed as to costs.
(3.) After the aforesaid judgment dated 10th May, 2011, a Committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry with regard to complicity of the carrier/ transporter. Such Committee submitted its report dated 6th June, 2011 with the conclusion that complicity of the petitioner No. 1 is proved in this case. On the basis of such report, an order dated 24th June, 2011 has been passed by the respondent-IOC blacklisting the entire fleet of TTs for two years as per Clauses 8.1 (a), (b), (f) and (g) of the Guidelines. Such order dated 24th June, 2011 has been challenged in the present writ petition.;