Jammu, May 04: In WP(C) No. 575/2025 CM No. 1345/2025 titled M/S Rudra Flour Mills Vs UT of J&K & Ors. after hearing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDERED as under:-
01. Heard in part in CM No. 1345/2025.
02. Given the fact that consideration of petitioner’s application for interim relief was kept subject to filing of the reply on behalf of the respondents, the reply from the end of the respondents has come forth and so the objections to the CM No. 1345/2025.
03. In the interim application, the petitioner is seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order No. 20- DFCS&CAJ-of 2025 dated 08/02/2025, which is meant to entail civil consequences upon the petitioner not only of termination of contract but also blacklisting and Serial No. 129 demand for return of amount of Rs. 8,23,93,258.20, within four weeks positively.
04. In addition, prospective recovery of amount on account of Bran has also been set out against the petitioner.
05. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Joint Director (Adm.), FCS & CA Department, Jammu issuing the impugned order on behalf of the Director, FCS & CA Department, Jammu, has referred ‘Clause 4’ of the agreement and reproduced the said clause.
06. The respondents in their reply have come forward with a copy of the agreement which was subsisting between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 along with Terms and Conditions of NIT which led to the execution of the agreement.
07. From the perusal of the said two documents accompanying the reply, this court is not coming across with the reference of clause 4 as made in the impugned order.
08. When pointed out, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned Government Advocate, representing the respondents, submits that he would have the assistance of Joint Director (Adm.), FCS & CA Department, Jammu. Accordingly, this Court directs the appearance of Joint Director (Adm.), FCS & CA Department, Jammu, in this case on 05.05.2025.
09. Mr. R.S. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate has shared citations in the form of a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled “M/S Techno Prints V/s Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr.” with respect to the legal modalities in which a contractor is to be blacklisted and that goes without saying that by putting a contractor to a prior notice about the prospective course of action adversely contemplated against it which in the present case, as asserted by R.S. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate was not done and the petitioner is said to have been condemned unilaterally by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the issuance of impugned order.
10. List this matter in the Supplementary Cause List on 05.05.2025.
11. Copy of the order be provided to Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned Government Advocate, under the seal and signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court.
|