Maa Shakti and Others vs Union of India and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—In a scheme formulated by Government of India for rehabilitation of child labour detected from various places a project namely the National Child Labour Project (NCLP) has been introduced in various districts through out the country. The scheme is required to be implemented through a registered society under the Chairmanship of administrative head of the district. For the purpose of rehabilitation of children certain guidelines have been issued and schools and rehabilitation centres are to be opened for the said purpose. Proceedings were held, offers were invited and it is not in dispute that the petitioners'' establishment were granted the right to run certain schools and rehabilitation centres, petitioners are running the said centres. Now fresh tender notices dated 4.2.2013 and 5.2.2013 has been published in newspaper by respondent No. 4, proposing to allot the schools and rehabilitation centres afresh in accordance to said advertisement. Challenging the proceedings initiated in allotment of schools and rehabilitation centres afresh by tender notice in question petitioner have filed this writ petition. Respondents have filed the reply and have sought for vacation of stay.

It is the case of petitioners that they are running the establishment in accordance to requirement of scheme, no irregularity is pointed out to them, no show-cause notice issued and now all of a sudden action is proposed to be taken behind their back without hearing them and without granting them any opportunity to explain the circumstances.

Respondents have filed a detailed reply and have brought to the notice of this Court the terms and conditions of allotment made and pointed out that if any irregularity is committed by any of the samiti or establishment their right to carry out in the functioning of establishment are liable to be cancelled. A detailed reply has been filed by respondents indicating that on the complaint received, the Field Officers were directed to conduct inspection, the inspection report of irregularity conducted by the Field Officers are brought on record Annexure R-2 to R-4.

Shri A.L. Gupta, learned counsel emphasized that this irregularity compel the authority to initiate fresh proceedings for allotment and in these proceedings the petitioner will also be granted opportunity to participate and, therefore, adversely affect in their right.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that when earlier offers of the petitioner were accepted, they were granted allotment, then before cancelling the allotment atleast an opportunity of showing cause and explaining the circumstances existing against them should have been granted to petitioner.

In this case the report Annexure R-2 to R-4 have been received on investigation done by the Field Officer and based on this report proceedings for inviting fresh tender have been initiated. However copy of this report have not been served on petitioners and they have not given any opportunity to give their say in the matter, therefore, this petition has to be allowed in party.

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances the following directions issued:

Respondent No. 2, the Chairman of the District National Child Labour Project shall issue show-cause notice to each of the petitioners pointing out to them the irregularity and deficiency in their establishment. The report of the Field Officers received and grant them 15 days time to give their say into the matter. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 shall consider the explanation to deficiency of petitioners and pass appropriate orders with regard to their continuation or otherwise with regard to project in question.

The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed by respondent No. 2 within one month and thereafter pass a decision taken by respondent No. 2 further action for issuing fresh notice or contract on the project in question shall be initiated by respondent No. 1.

Till the matter is not finalized by respondent No. 1, as indicated hereinabove, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to remain in operation, but on the day order passed by respondent NO. 1, the same shall come to an end. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of.