Bombay High Court

SHREE SWAMI SERVICES LABOUR AND SECURITY CONTRACTOR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETORversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The impugned order dated 19 September 2022 is quashed and set aside.

Summary

The petitioner, Shree Swami Services Labour and Security Contractor, was awarded a contract to collect garbage for the Jamner Municipal Council and performed the work in October‑November 2021, submitting bills for payment. Despite repeated requests, the respondent (Chief Officer of Jamner Municipal Council) failed to release the payment and subsequently issued an order on 19 September 2022 that blacklisted the petitioner and forfeited its security deposit without any hearing. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition, arguing that no evidence of complaints was placed on record and that the order violated principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the respondent had acted beyond the direction of an earlier order dated 22 June 2022, which required a decision on the petitioner’s representation but did not authorize punitive action without hearing. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent could forfeit the petitioner’s security deposit and blacklist it without providing a hearing.
Whether the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Subjects

garbage collection contract
blacklisting
forfeiture of security deposit
natural justice
writ petition
municipal contract

Judgment

                                 1                  16-WP-141-23.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               WRIT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2023

   SHREE SWAMI SERVICES LABOUR AND SECURITY CONTRACTOR
                     THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
                              VERSUS
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                 ...
Ms. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent/State
Mr. Sandesh V. Hange, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                 ...

                       CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                               ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                        DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026

PER COURT :

1.         Leave is granted to correct the nomenclature of

respondent No.3. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.


2.         By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated

19/09/2022 passed by respondent No.3 Chief Officer of Jamner

Municipal Council, thereby blacklisting it and forfeiting deposit of

earnest amount and security amount.


3.         Admitted facts on record are that, the petitioner was

allotted contract of collection of garbage in Jamner. Agreement was

entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 and on

02/08/2021 work order was issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the

petitioner started work in the area of Municipal Council of Jamner.

Petitioner has done his work in the month of October, 2021 and



SVH
                                   2                    16-WP-141-23.odt


November, 2021 and submitted bills for the work done. Inspite of

repeated persuasion on the part of petitioner, respondent No.3 did

not release the payment of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.5473/2022. By order

dated 22/06/2022, this Court directed respondent No.3 to decide the

representation of petitioner observing that, “if any dispute arises as

regards the quantum of money to be paid to the petitioners, they

are at liberty to institute civil suits before the competent civil courts

for seeking recovery of unpaid amounts”. Pursuant to the said

direction, the impugned order is passed.


4.          Heard learned advocate for petitioner, learned AGP for

State and learned advocate for respondent No.3.


5.          Respondent No.3 has heavily relied on the earlier order

passed by this Court on 22/06/2022, which is quoted hereinabove.

He submits that there were complaints against the petitioner and he

himself stopped work of collecting garbage. The impugned order

was, therefore, necessitated. He, thus, tried to justify the impugned

order.


6.          So far as the contentions of respondent No.3 in respect

of alleged complaints against the petitioner are concerned, nothing

is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. This Court

had directed respondent No.3 to decide the representation of




SVH
                                    3                    16-WP-141-23.odt


petitioner. While deciding the representation, respondent No.3 has

erroneously proceeded to pass the impugned order, thereby

forfeiting security deposit of petitioner and blacklisting it.


7.          Indisputably, no opportunity of hearing is given to the

petitioner while passing the impugned order. Since there is nothing

on record to justify the impugned order, the same is unsustainable

in the law and facts of the present case.


8.          In view of the above, the impugned order dated

19/09/2022, is quashed and set aside. Writ petition is, accordingly,

allowed to above extent.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




SVH

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…