Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchBilal Ahmad Dar vs Ut Of Jk And Ors on 30 June, 2022Author:Sanjeev KumarBench:Sanjeev KumarS. No. 42\n                                                         Suppl. List\n    IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n                       AT SRINAGAR\n\n                         WP(C) No. 1153/2022\n                          CM No. 2829/2022\n\nBilal Ahmad Dar                                              ...Petitioner(s)\n\nThrough: Mr. M.A.Wani, Advocate, with Mr. Z.A.Wani, Adv.\n\n                                    Vs.\n\nUT of JK and Ors.                                          ...Respondent(s)\n\nThrough: Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG.\n\nCORAM:\n          HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE\n\n                              ORDER30.06.2022\n\n  Oral:01. Petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged the order of Chief\n\n     Engineer, Jammu and Kashmir, UEED, Srinagar, issued vide his No.\n\n     CE/UEED/PS/532-68 dated 24th May, 2022, whereby the "AAY"Class Contractor Card issued in favour of the petitioner under\n\n     Registration No. CE/UEED/AAY/Civil/Sanitary/04/2017-18 dated\n\n     20th January, 2018, has been cancelled.02. Notice of the petition was issued on 22nd June, 2022, and in response\n\n     there to, Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG, appeared before the Vacation\n\n     Judge on 22nd June, 2022. He was asked to file objections or seek\n\n     instructions in the matter within one week. It appears that having\n\n     regard to the urgency involved in the matter, the Vacation Judge fixed\n\n     the matter for consideration on 30th June, 2022. Neither objections\n\n     have been filed nor Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG, has been able to obtain\n\n     instructions from the respondents.03. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the\n\n   material on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is not\n\n   sustainable for the simple reason that the same is apparently issued in\n\n   violation of the principles of natural justice, in that, the petitioner does\n\n   not seem to have been provided any opportunity of being heard.\n\n   Needless to say, that the cancellation of registration certificate of a\n\n   contractor deprives him of his right of livelihood and, therefore,\n\n   affects his vital civil rights. Such order, which has drastic civil\n\n   consequences, cannot be passed without hearing a person concerned.\n\n   At this stage, it would be relevant to refer toSection 5of the Jammu\n\n   and Kashmir Registration of Contractors Act, 1956 ("the Act of\n\n   1956"), which, for the facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:-"Removal of name from Register. --(1) The Head of the\n               Department may, for reasons to be recorded, direct the removal\n               altogether or for a specified period from the register of the name of\n               any registered contractor. On the issue of such an order the\n               certificate of registration issued in favour of the contractor shall be\n               deemed to be cancelled.(2) An appeal shall lie to the Minister-in-Charge of the Department\n               against an order of the Head of the Department directing the\n               removal of the name of a registered contractor from the register.Such appeal shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of\n               the order.(3) The Minister-in-Charge of the Department may authorize the\n               Deputy Minister-in-Charge of the Department to hear and dispose\n               of all or any of such appeals."04. From reading ofSection 5, it clearly transpires that the Authority\n\n   competent to issue certificate of registration to a person as contractor\n\n   is also competent to direct the removal of such registered contractor\n\n   from the register maintained for the purpose and consequently cancel\n\n   the certificate of registration issued in favour of such contractor. This,\n\n   however, is required to be done by the competent Authority for\n\n   reasons to be recorded. The requirement of recording the reasons\n\n   itself inheres and envisages the compliance with the principles of\n\n   natural justice. In the instant case, the registration of petitioner as\n    contractor has been cancelled solely on the basis of Jammu and\n\n   Kashmir Anticorruption Bureau's (ACB) alert Note No. 07/2022\n\n   (JSC-JSK-05-2020), by virtue of which, the ACB has recommended\n\n   to the department of UEED to conduct a thorough exercise to trace\n\n   all illegal "AAY" Class Contractor Cards issued by the then Chief\n\n   Engineer Mohammad Ali Khan and take appropriate steps for getting\n\n   their cancellation. The recommendations made by the ACB could not\n\n   have been treated by the Department of Housing and Urban\n\n   Development Department as well as UEED, Srinagar, as a mandamus\n\n   nor could they have straightway cancelled the registration of the\n\n   petitioner as contractor without giving reasons and without affording\n\n   an opportunity of being heard. The failure of the respondents to\n\n   provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to record\n\n   reasons in support of the action has vitiated the impugned order. I am\n\n   aware that any order passed underSection 5reproduced above\n\n   removing the registered contractor from the register maintained for\n\n   the purpose and consequently cancelling his certificate of registration\n\n   is appealable under Sub Section (2) ofSection 5of the Act of 1956,\n\n   yet having regard to the fact that order impugned, on the face of it, is\n\n   in violation of the principles of natural justice, I would not relegate\n\n   the petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal provided under the\n\n   Act of 1956. The objection raised by Mr. Satinder Singh, learned\n\n   AAG, with regard to the maintainability of the petitioner due to\n\n   availability of the alternate remedy is, therefore, overruled.05. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned\n\n   Order No. CE/UEED/PS/532-68 dated 24th May, 2022 issued by the\n\n   Chief Engineer, Housing and Urban Development Department,\n         Kashmir, Srinagar, (respondent no. 2) is quashed. This, however,\n\n        does not mean that the competent Authority cannot proceed against\n\n        the petitioner underSection 5of the Jammu and Kashmir Registration\n\n        of Contractors Act, 1956 and pass appropriate orders, but before\n\n        doing so, it is under an obligation to provide a fair and adequate\n\n        opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The competent Authority\n\n        shall do well to record reasons in support of the action, if any taken,\n\n        against the petitioner.06. Disposed of along with connected CM(s) in the aforesaid terms.(SANJEEV KUMAR)\n                                                           JUDGE\nSRINAGAR\n30.06.2022\n"Shamim Dar"Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No\n                          Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No