CSS Deopa v. UOI and Anr.

2. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was empanelled on 21st November, 2005, after he had taken premature retirement from Indian Navy. According to the respondents, the ceiling limit of allocation of guards to individuals proprietary security agency is 300 guards cumulatively in a four year period or 63 years of age of the proprietor, whichever is earlier. It is further stated that the petitioner had already availed his quota of 300 guards but he did not disclose correct strength in his N-2 Returns. He had shown only 100 guards in his N-2 Returns whereas he has crossed the limit of 300 guards which he did not disclose to respondents. As regards disempanelment of the petitioner without any notice or hearing, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that no show-cause notice is required to be issued to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of his empanelment.

3. The main contention of the petitioner is that he has been disempanelled without issuing show-cause notice or giving any opportunity of hearing to him. The order of disempanelment to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “DISEMPANELMENT

1. Reference your N-2 dated 07 Nov., 2010.

2. Your agency viz. M/s. Jai Malanath Security Services, Emp No.1667 is hereby disempanelled for violation of para 37(b) of DGR instructions Jt. Director (Emp.) For DGR”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 13th August, 2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) NO. 428/2012 titled Appaches Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner who was empanelled with the Directorate General of Resettlement (in short “DGR”) was disempanelled without following the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved, he filed the aforesaid writ petition. When the attention of the learned counsel for the respondents was drawn to the fact that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been given to the aforesaid petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated, on instructions, that they would withdraw the impugned letter and issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to answer the allegations against him. The impugned letter was, therefore, set aside with a direction that the respondent No.2 shall issue a show-cause notice if he so deems fit and the said show-cause notice also indicates that the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing. The date, time and venue of the hearing were also required to be specified in the notice.

5. In Raghunath Thakur vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 229, where Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:- “4. … It has to be realized that black-listing any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order.” In Vinay Construction Co. & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. [116(2005) DLT 14], this Court rejected the contention that there can be indefinite period of blacklisting, holding that since blacklisting carries a very severe consequence and needs to be for a prescribed period. In A. Rajendran vs. The General Manager [Writ Petition No.17517 of 2002 decided on 16.10.2003], the Madras High Court, noticing that the order of blacklisting the petitioner did not specify the period of blacklisting, quashed the said order, thereby upholding the contention that blacklisting could not be for an indefinite period. In Well Protect Manpower Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 117(2005) DLT 293 (DB), this Court, inter alia, held as under:-