IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

M/S Prahlad Narayan Contractor Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Facts:

1. The order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the First Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 4).
2. The subsequent work order dated 21.10.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 5 – M/s Vivekanand Audhyogik Prashikshan Sanstha.

The petitioner alleged that both orders were passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The First Appellate Authority entertained and decided the appeal filed by Respondent No. 6 (Professional Facility Management Services) without issuing any notice to the petitioner.
• While notice for hearing was issued to the appellant (Respondent No. 6), no such notice or intimation was given to the petitioner, who was a direct stakeholder as the original awardee of the work order.
• The entire adjudication took place behind the petitioner’s back, depriving him of the right to defend his selection and respond to allegations raised against him.
• The petitioner emphasized that this action directly affects his rights under the awarded contract and thus necessitated his inclusion in the appellate proceedings.
  
  

Respondent’s Arguments

• The State contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond.
• A document dated prior to the appellate order was shown, which sought the petitioner’s comments on objections raised by Respondent No. 6.
• It was argued that this sufficed as adequate opportunity and procedural compliance.
  
  

Hon’ble High Court’s Observations & Decision

• The notice dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure R-4) was issued only to Respondent No. 6 for the purpose of hearing before the First Appellate Authority.
• The petitioner was not issued any notice for personal hearing or informed about the appeal hearing schedule.
• The prior communication (Annexure R-3) seeking comments on objections does not amount to notice of hearing, especially when an adverse order was likely to be passed.
• The Court held that the principles of natural justice were clearly violated, as the petitioner was not heard in a matter directly affecting his contractual rights.

• The writ petition was allowed.
• The order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the First Appellate Authority and the consequential order dated 21.10.2022 allotting work to Respondent No. 5 were quashed and set aside.
• All pending applications were also disposed of.