STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusBALRAM SAHU

                           [2009] 1 S.C.R. 655


                    STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.                             A
                                    V.
                             BALRAM SAHU
                     (Civil Appeal No. 444 of 2009)

                          JANUARY 27, 2009
                                                                         B
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

..                       GANGULY, JJ.)

        (OR/SSA) P. W.D. CONTRACTORS REGJSTRA T/ON
     RULES, 1967:                                                        c
          r. 11 (a) - Cancellation of contractor's licence - Set aside
     by High Court for non-issuance of notice to contractor -
     HELD: High Court in its earlier order had specifically directed
     that before cancellation and forfeiture of security deposit,        D
     notice was to be given - It would be open to State Government
     to issue a notice in terms of order passed by High Court and
     decide the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to
     the contractor - Natural Justice.

          In a writ petition filed by the respondent, the High           E
     Court, on 13.5.2004, directed that without issuing a show
     cause notice to him and without giving him an
     opportunity of hearing, his licence as Super Class
.A   Contractor would not be cancelled. By order dated
     7.10.2005 respondent's licence was cancelled under Rule             F
     11 (a) of P.W.D. Contractors Registration Rules, 1967. The
     respondent challenged the said order in another writ
     petition wherein the stand of the appellant- State was that
     a show cause notice had been issued to the respondents
     on 21.2.2004. The High Court by its order dated 9.2.2007            G
     allowed the writ petition holding that after the order dated
     13.5.2004 no notice was issued. Aggrieved, the State
     Government filed the appeals.

                                   655                                   H
    656         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2009) 1 S.C.R.


A         Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: The order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the High
  Court was very specific to the effect that before
  cancellation and forfeiture of security deposit, notice has
  to be given. That admittedly has not been done. In the
8
  circumstances, the order of the High Court impugned in
  the instant appeals shall remain operative. It is open to
  the appellant-State to issue notice in terms of the order
  passed by the High Court and to decide the matter in
  accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the
C respondent. [Para 5) [658-D-F]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 444
    of 2009.

0       From the Judgment and final Order dated 9.02.2007 of the
    High Court of Orissa at Cuttak in W.P. (C) No. 13432 of 2005.    "'

                                WITH

    C.A.No 445 of 2009.
E
          Siboo Sankar Mishra for the Appellant.

        Akhilendra K. Mahapatra and Pankaj Kumar Singh for the
    Respondent.

F         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in both the
    Special Leave Petitions.

       2. The controversy in the two appeals lies within a very
G narrow compass. Writ Petition No.3445 of 2004 was filed by
  the respondent before the Orissa High Court, inter-alia, with a
  prayer that his license as a Super Class Contractor should not
  be cancelled by the respondent No.2 i.e. Chairman of the
  Committee of Chief Engineers and Engineers in Chief, Orissa.
H The Writ Petition was filed under the apprehension that his
     STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. v. BALRAM SAHU                     657
               [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

license was likely to be cancelled. The High Court disposed             A
of the Writ Petition by order dated 13.5.2004 after hearing
learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Government
Advocate with a direction that without issuing show cause notice
to the writ petitioner and without giving him a fair opportunity
of hearing, his license as Super Class Contractor shall not be          B
cancelled and his security deposit shall not be forfeited.

      3. Several miscellaneous cases were thereafter filed by
 the respondents. By order dated 7 .10.2005 the Chairman of
 the aforesaid Committee directed cancellation of respondent's          C
 license under Rule 11 (a) of P.W.D. Contractors Registration
 Rules, 1967 (in short the ·Rules'). This was questioned by the
 respondent by filing a writ petition taking the stand that the order
 was passed by the Chief Engineer, but no notice was issued
 prior to passing of the order. The High Court by order dated
 9.2.2007 allowed the Writ Petition, quashing several orders            D
 passed on the ground that before the cancellation was done,
 no notice was given. Reference was made by the present
 appellants to notice purportedly issued on 21.2.2004. It was
 stated that before the order was passed by the High Court in
Writ Petition No.3445/2004, a show cause notice had already             E
 been issued. The respondent filed a rejoinder affidavit taking
the stand that after the order was passed on 13.5.2004 in the
earlier writ petition, no notice was issued. The High Court
noticed that before cancellation of the license no notice had
been issued and the previous writ petition was disposed of with         F
a specific direction that without notice and grant of fair
opportunity of hearjng license shall not be cancelled and the
security shall not be forfeited. Undisputedly, after the date of
the High Court's order, no notice was issued. Thereafter, several
miscellaneous cases were filed for extension of time. An                G
application was also filed for modification of order passed on
9.2.2007 by the High Court. But the High Court by order dated
25.6.2008 rejected the same and further directed the present
appellants to implement the order dated 9.2.2007.
                                                                        H
    658         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 1 S C.R.


A        4. Learned counsel for the appellant-state and its
    functionaries submitted the earlier writ petition was disposed
    of without issuance of notice and the High Court should have
    taken note of the fact that prior to the date of order, notice had
    been issued.
B
       5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand
  submitted that the High Court specifically directed that before
  cancellation and forfeiture notice has to be given. Even though
  notice was not formerly issued in the earlier petition, learned
  Government Advocate appeared for the State and its
C functionaries. He did not bring to the notice of the High Court
  that any show cause notice was issued on 21.2.2004. The
  matter was disposed of on 13.5.2004 i.e. after about three
  months. It was pointed out that the cancellation order was
  passed on 7.10.2005. Before that also there was no prayer
D made to modify the earlier order. It was never the stand of the        ..
  State and its functionaries about the issuance of notice on
  21.2.2004. We find that the stand taken by the respondent is
  factually correct. The order dated 13.5.2004 was very specific
  to the effect that before cancellation and forfeiture of security
E deposit, notice has to be given. That admittedly has not been
  done. In the circumstances we dispose of both the appeals with
  a direction that the impugned order of the High Court shall
  remain operative. It is open to the appellant-State and its
  functionaries to issue notice in terms of the order passed by
F the High Court in Writ Petition No.3445/2004 and after grant
  of opportunity, decide the matter in accordance with law. The
  appeals are accordingly disposed of.

    R.P.                                      Appeals disposed of.