Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1013 (PAT)

Surya Enterprises v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-07

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order by which the petitioner was blacklisted without even issuance of any notice or initiating any proceeding in this regard and in a most arbitrary fashion. He came to know of this blacklisting only when such an order was published in the newspaper on 3rd of December, 2005. It appears that the Bihar State Health Society through its Special Secretary-cum-Executive Director published a tender notice (Annexure 1) calling for tenders in respect of certain stationery and other materials. The tenders were to be submitted by 25th November, 2005 and were to be opened at 3 P.M. on the same day. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated and filed histender. The tenders were opened on 25.11.2005 and thereafter they were called for negotiation on 26.11.2005. The rates were altered and with reference to Annexure A of the counter affidavit it is clear that the petitioner revised his rates and undertook to supply the same within the time schedule. Petitioner asserts that he thereafter enquired about the time schedule. He was asked to contact one person with a N.G.O. when the petitioner contacted the said person he was told that all supplies have to be made by 9.12.2005. He immediately then protested to the Executive Director that the time fixed was very short as one item was not readily available in the market, he did not receive any response to the aforesaid. On 29.11.2005 when he made further enquiry he learnt that order had been placed with some one else and his request was probably turned down. On 3rd December, that is, after four days he read in newspaper that he had been blacklisted. It is accordingly under the said circumstances the present writ application was filed. 3. A counter affidavit was earlier filed which was found grossly insufficient and as such by a detailed order dated 20.9.2006 this court making pointed reference to the pleadings directed the respondents to file a complete counter affidavit saying as to how and when the date for executing the work was fixed. It was also required to be stated as to when and to whom orders were placed on alleged default of the petitioner. It was also required to be stated as to when proceedings were drawn up and when the petitioner was noticed. It was also required to be stated as to when and to whom orders were placed on alleged default of the petitioner. It was also required to be stated as to when proceedings were drawn up and when the petitioner was noticed. A counter affidavit has been filed in which with reference to Annexure A, a letter dated 26.11.2005 which is nothing but a reproduction of Annexure 3 to the writ petition itself. It is asserted that the petitioner was aware of the date by which the supplies have to be made because in that letter the petitioner is said to have written that he was ready to make supply within the time schedule. 4. Regrettably neither that letter nor anywhere in the counter affidavit it has been categorically stated that the time schedule for supply was ever fixed earlier. Neither in the counter affidavit nor at the bar it is stated that the statement made in the writ petition that the date was subsequently fixed has been denied. No document has been produced contrary to the statements made in the writ petition. Thus its stand established that the date by which supplies have to be made was not disclosed prior to the tender or even at the time when tender was finalised. In my view this vitiates the entire process. It was an agreement to do some work without time stipulation. 5. Petitioner immediately protested that the time was too short again nothing happened. He was not called. He was not informed that his request for extension was being turned down. The authorities took a decision within confine of their office, called another person, placed the orders, took a decision cancelling the petitioners order and took a decision blacklisting the petitioner. All within the dark confines of the office with no communication or interaction with the petitioner. In my opinion this destructive all principle of administrative law. We are governed by rule of law and not by rule of fancy of any indiviaual of what he thinks of rule. Every officer being a part of the system of Government in this country is bound by the Constitution. He cannot act arbitrarily on his whim and caprice and on standards set by himself. He has to abide by law. 6. When the authorities decided to cancel his tender they had to disclose the reasons. Every officer being a part of the system of Government in this country is bound by the Constitution. He cannot act arbitrarily on his whim and caprice and on standards set by himself. He has to abide by law. 6. When the authorities decided to cancel his tender they had to disclose the reasons. When they wanted, to blacklist they should give an opportunity of being heard. These are the least requirements of fair administration and bringing about the transparency in decisions making process. What is destructive of fair administration is limiting all considerations within the confines of office or to file and not involving the person who is aggrieved party. 7. The respondents were not dealing with any State or internal security or any matter. They were dealing in commercial field. Such action is highly deplorable and cannot be but quashed. I, therefore, quash blacklisting of the petitioner but so far as tender is concerned, the works have already been given to another on inability of the petitioner to be executed the same is not interfered with.