2024:UHC:8896
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
WPMS No. 2919 of 2024
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Devendra Singh Bora, learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the petitioner (a proprietorship
firm) has been black listed by order
dated 07.11.2023 passed by the
District Supply Officer, Almora on the
ground that the eatable items supplied
by the petitioner was sub-standard
quality.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner firm has
been black listed without giving any
notice and opportunity of hearing.
5. On the previous date Mr. Devendra
Singh Bora, learned Standing Counsel
was directed to get instructions in the
matter whether the petitioner has been
given notice or opportunity of hearing
before black listing and furthermore
whether any procedure has been
followed, as per the the provisions of
Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 to
ascertain whether the eatable items
supplied by the petitioner were sub-
standard or not.
6. Today, on instructions, Mr. Bora,
learned Standing Counsel for the State
fairly submits that before blacklisting
the petitioner was not given any notice
or opportunity of hearing and
procedure as prescribed under the
provisions of Food Safety and Standard
Act, 2006 to ascertain the quality of
2024:UHC:8896
eatable items were not followed.
However, he submits that this was the
second time that the petitioner’s firm
repeatedly supplied the sub-standard
eatable items. He further submits that
earlier the petitioner was given warning
despite this he has repeated the same
thing.
7. Be that as it may, it is settled
principle of law that no one can be
blacklisted without giving any notice or
opportunity of hearing. Hence, the
impugned order cannot sustain, since,
the same has been passed in violation
of principle of natural justice.
8. Mr. Bora, learned Standing
Counsel fairly submits that liberty may
be given to the respondent to give
fresh notice and opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and to pass a fresh
order.
9. The submission as advanced by
Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel is
really appreciable.
10. After taking into consideration the
argument as advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel for the State,
the impugned order dated 07.11.2023,
passed by the District Supply Officer,
Almora is quashed with the liberty to
the respondent to pass fresh order
after giving notice and opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
11. The entire exercise be carried out
and completed within a period of two
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order. So far as
issue with regard to the forfeiture of
security amount is concerned that will
be intact and will be subject to the
outcome of the fresh decision taken by
the respondent.
12. Subject to the observation and
2024:UHC:8896
directions as made above, the writ
petition is disposed of finally. If the
petitioner still have a grievance after
final determination by the respondent
pursuant to the direction as above, the
petitioner can avail appropriate remedy
as available under the law.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
29.11.2024
Parul