PURUSHAINDRAKUMAR KAURAV, J. - (1.)The petitioner is aggrieved by order dtd. 22/9/2020 (Annexure P/17), whereby, the petitioner has been blacklisted.
(2.)The petitioner states that it is an NGO engaged in the work of Social and economic upliftment of the differently abled persons etc. The respondent No.1 with an aim of development of indigenous wool and woolens in the wool producing states in the country had introduced a programme by the name of Integrated Wool Improvement and Development Programme. With the aim of effective implementation of the said programme, various projects were floated by respondent No.1 and pursuant to such project, the petitioner submitted its proposal for two locations i.e Tikamgarh and Chhatarpur and accordingly, a sanction order in favour of the petitioner was issued. One of the sanction order dtd. 9/6/2008 (Annexure JP/1) mentions sanction accorded to draw a sum of Rs.28,00,000.00 as grant-in-aid to meet the expenditure for implementation of Sheep & Wool Improvement Scheme for one lakh Marwari Sheep at Chhatarpur and Tikamgarh Districts of Madhya Pradesh. Various terms and conditions for utilization of the amount of grant were stipulated therein. The petitioner submits that it had undertaken the work of survey and study, Registration of flocks, project formulation and Training etc. After completion of the work, the report was submitted. On account of certain irregularities, an enquiry was conducted and F.I.R against the petitioner was registered by the C.B.I. However, after investigation, a closure report was filed before the Special Judge, C.B.I. which was accepted vide order dtd. 18/1/2014 (Annexure P/6). Despite the closure report, C.B.I. wrote a letter to respondent No.1 that an excess amount of Rs.14.28 lacs has to be recovered from the petitioner. Thereupon, on 4/7/2014, respondent No.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner to explain the aforesaid conduct. Notwithstanding the aforesaid correspondence and reply, respondent No.1 on 9/7/2019 and 2/8/2019 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why action of blacklisting should not be initiated against the petitioner as the actual number of Sheep is lesser than what has been intimated by the petitioner in its report. The petitioner had submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. On 22/9/2020, the order of blacklisting of the petitioner for indefinite period has been issued, hence the petitioner has preferred this petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent No.1 in blacklisting the petitioner for indefinite period is illegal and improper. The same is not permissible under the law. He placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others (2014) 14 SCC 731, Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2021) 1 SCC 804., B.C.Biyani Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others Civil Appeal No.6632/2016 decided on 22/7/2016 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Deep Enterprises Vs. State of M.P. and others 2017(2) MPLJ 145..