Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2355 (RAJ)

Shri Avdhesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2009-11-13

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents of blacklisting the petitioners and debarring them from participating in future tenders and contracts. The petitioners have further sought declaration of the letter dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure-7), letter dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure-9) and the letter dated 21.6.2008 (Annexure-1 1) as null and void. The petitioners have also sought a direction to the respondents not to forfeit the earnest money and further to refund the said amount with interest @ 12% per annum. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the orders/letters of the respondents of blacklisting the petitioners and forfeiting the earnest money are without authority and against the tender conditions and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, more particularly the order dated 21.6.2008 or any further order of blacklisting consequently resulting in debarring the petitioners from participation in other tenders are liable to be set aside. 3. The respondents, in their reply, have stated that the petitioners have failed to fulfill the conditions, therefore, after seeking permission from the State Government, the bid was cancelled and the petitioners have been declared black listed. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before declaring them as black listed. Consequently, the petitioners were debarred from participating in future tenders. Since the respondents have not issued any show cause notice to the petitioners, the impugned orders/letters are violative of principal of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgments reported in 1989(1) SCC 229 (Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others) , 1978(3) SCC 36 (Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer, (PWD) Ernakulam and others) and 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 699 (Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And another) . 5. Learned counsel for the respondents made a statement on 26.10.2009 that before blacklisting the petitioners, they have not served any show cause notice as to why the petitioners should not be blacklisted. 6. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents made a statement on 26.10.2009 that before blacklisting the petitioners, they have not served any show cause notice as to why the petitioners should not be blacklisted. 6. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Before proceeding further, I would like to quote the relevant paras No. 10 and 11 of the judgment of 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 699 (Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Another) which are as under : "10. Again, in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar this Court observed : (SCC p. 230, para 4) "Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. Insofar as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that black-listing any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order." 11. The deletion of the appellant's name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were some vigilance report against it, could only be done consistent with and after due compliance with the principles of natural justice. That not having been done, it requires to be held that withholding of the tender form from the appellant was not justified. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition." 8. In my view, law is well settled as is evident from the aforesaid judgments that before blacklisting the contractors and debarring them from participating in another tender, compliance of provisions of natural justice is necessary. 9. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition." 8. In my view, law is well settled as is evident from the aforesaid judgments that before blacklisting the contractors and debarring them from participating in another tender, compliance of provisions of natural justice is necessary. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the action of the respondents of blacklisting the petitioners and further debarring them from participating in other tender is declared null and void. The respondents are at liberty to issue'-show cause notice to the petitioners as to why they should not be black listed if so desired, and after receipt of reply, pass appropriate orders.Writ Petition Allowed. *******