The employees who had been dismissed by the State also applied to the High Court for setting aside their dismissal.
318 of 1974 was on the, approved list of the Director General, Supplies and Disposals since the year 1942.
The petitioners companytend that there is discrimination and lack of fair play at the sale.
In the month of January, 1968 the respondent applied to the Court for return of the account books which had been taken by the Special Police Establishment.
The State maintains a list of buyers or bidders.
From the judgment and order dated the 15th September 1973 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The petitioners allege that since the month of December, 1970 all offers of the petitioners were rejected though in most cases their offer was the highest.
C. Singhania, C. N. Murthy, In W.P. No.
The employees of the Government who had been suspended in the year 1964 were dismissed on 1 June, 1967.
The State has the right to reject a bid at an auction.
A Departmental enquiry was made against the store keeper and the Store holder in the Bombay Telephone Workshop.
The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal.
The present appeal is against that judgment.
It was also said that the attitude of the State was number discriminatory against the petitioner but that the State wanted that the pending proceedings against the petitioner for alleged violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act should be adjudicated first and thereafter the State would deal with the petitioner.
318/74 .
The petitioners in the Writ Petitions were engaged in the business of purchase and export of Cinchona products between the years 1966 and 1971.
34/74 , Madan Bhatia and Shiv Khorana, In W.P. No.
It is because of this resolution that the tender of the petitioners was number accepted.
In the month of March, 1968 the account books were ordered to be returned.
34/74 959/73 .
It was said that the petitioner was number entitled as of right to acceptance of tender.
34/74 and 959/73 .
318/74 .
The petitioners according to the respondent came to know this resolution at the meeting of the Sales Committee on 4 December, 1973.
The respondent filed Writ Petition in the High Court at Bombay on 20 January, 1969.
32 of the Constitution of India and Civil Appeal No.
Their tender was accepted.
In Writ Petitions companynsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was number entitled to any order of mandamus inasmuch as the sales were companytractual.
On 12 January, 1973 the High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent setting aside the order whereby the respondent was blacklisted.
The State companyld number however produce the original resolution in this Court.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
959/73 and M. K. Garg, for the petitioners In W.P. No.
The petitioners are interested in the purchase of Cinchona in companyrse of their trade and business.
The respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The last renewal of registration of the respondent was on 5 June, 1963 for three years.
Sen, D. N. Mukherjee, Sukumar Basu and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondents In W.P. No.
Those two employees were suspended in the month of December, 1964.
The Special Police Establishment took charge of account books of the respondent in the month of August, 1964.
They submitted tender for purchase of Cinchona.
The respondent State alleges that the petitioners were guilty of misdeclaration of goods in their export transactions.
Haroon S. Kably and S. Markandeya, for the respondents In A. No.
It may be mentioned here that the petitioners have challenged the charges and cases under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act in the High Court at Calcutta in Writ Petition No.
38 of 1973.
The petitioners submit that they are entitled to receive the same treatment and to be given the same chance as anybody else for the purchase of Cinchona.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. The two Writ Petitions and the Civil Appeal raise the question as to whether a person who is put on the black list by the State Government is entitled to a numberice to be heard before the name is put on the black list.
318 of 1974.
34 of 1974 and 959 of 1973.
Certain reports were received against the respondent regarding shortage of timber.
The State filed an appeal.
On 4 December, 1965 the department put the name of the respondent on the black list.
Petition under Art.
The High Court accepted the prayer of the employees by an order dated 3 August, 1972.
They entered into companytracts with the State Government during those years for purchase of Cinchona for large sums of money.
N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, P. P. Rao and M. Shroff, for the appellant In C.A. No.
The Sales Committee of the State learnt from a secret letter from the Collector of Customs, Calcutta that the firm of the petitioners was involved in malpractices, and their case was under investigation.
Sale of Cinchona is held by the State Government at meetings of the Sales Committee.
The petitioners submitted tender once on 15th February, 1973 and again on 4 December, 1973.
The Sales Committee at a meeting on 21 January, 1971 resolved number to deal with the firm of the petitioners till the firm was cleared of charges of malpractices.
959 of 1973 which is pending.
