PRAKASH PADIA ,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5. "This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs; (A) to issue the writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned order dated 08.11.2019 passed by respondent No.5 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere in the working of the petitioner and pay all other pending dues forthwith. (C) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (D) The respondents be also directed to pay the cost to the petitioner." Fact in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a registered firm having good reputation. It is contended that respondent No.5 had advertised some work of the Zila Panchayat Aurraiya in the daily newspaper Dainik Aaj dated 16.7.2018 and the petitioner had applied through tender for some work and about 20 works have been sanctioned to the firm. It is stated that on account of unexpected rain, some work could not be finished within time and the petitioner had informed about the same to the concerned authorities and for grant of extension of time. It is further stated that the petitioner has completed all its works and now only some finishing touch is required in eight works. It is stated that respondent No.6 namely Chairman of Zila Panchayat Aurraiya demanded some money as commission, when the petitioner could not fulfil his illegal demand, respondent No.6 got the complaint filed against the petitioner. On the complaint, an inquiry was conducted on 31.07.2019 and 01.08.2019 about which the petitioner was neither given any information nor opportunity of hearing was afforded. Thereafter, a notice dated 20.08.2019 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied the aforesaid notice on 03.09.2019 stating therein that the remaining work would be completed after the rain is stopped and has not taken any payment for the incomplete work but the respondent No.6 without considering the same passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 by which not only the petitioner's security was forfeited and registration cancelled, his firm too was blacklisted. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.
(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the respondent No.5 is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and liable to be set aside by this Court due to reasons that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order impugned by which not only the tender of the petitioner was cancelled, security amount was forfeited but he was blacklisted. Nothing has been stated in the show cause notice regarding blacklisting of the petitioner but in the impugned order, the petitioner was also blacklisted without giving any opportunity of hearing as such the order of blacklisting of the petitioner is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed malafidely on the basis of ex-parte report at the instance of the President Zila Panchayat/respondent No.6 merely to harass and victimize the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that the respondents have proceeded on the basis of a show cause notice. Nothing has been stated in the show cause notice regarding blacklisting of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to refute this fact on record. In our opinion, the issue which was not raised even in the show cause notice, could not be made the basis for blacklisting of the petitioner. ;