Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 617 (UTT)

Virendra Singh Karki v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-22

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner was given a contract by respondent No. 2 – Almora Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (in short ‘Almora Dugdh Sangh’) for running a milk bar vide letter/order dated 27.03.2015. Thereafter, the contract was cancelled vide order date 24.06.2016 by the General Manager of Almora Dugdh Sangh. By the said order, not only the contract was cancelled but the petitioner was also declared blacklisted. The net result of blacklisting of the petitioner would be that he cannot participate in future business dealings or transactions with Almora Dugdh Sangh. This order is presently being challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. 2. On the other hand, the case of the respondents before this Court is that a contract was executed with the petitioner on 30.03.2015, which was for a period of one year and the same was extended for further one year and when the contract period was surviving, it was cancelled by respondent No. 2, as the petitioner could not deposit the amount, which was collected by him, with the respondent/Almora Dugdh Sangh. The petitioner was served repeated notices by the respondent and subsequently he deposited the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh & Seventy Five Thousand only) with the cashier of respondent No. 2 – Almora Dugdh Sangh on 21.06.2016. According to the petitioner as on date there is no due against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner deposited the amount with the respondent in spite of that they have cancelled the contract and allotted the same to another person. The main grievance of the petitioner is that not only the contract was cancelled by the respondents, but he was declared blacklisted without granting any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice to him. 4. From the perusal of the entire records, this Court is of the opinion that as far as the cancellation of contract is concerned it seems to be just and proper, as the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the contract, inasmuch as he had not deposited the amount in time. Moreover, a cheque submitted by him was also dishonoured, and therefore, the respondents are well within their right to cancel the contract. By now, this contract for the remaining period has also been given to another person. 5. Moreover, a cheque submitted by him was also dishonoured, and therefore, the respondents are well within their right to cancel the contract. By now, this contract for the remaining period has also been given to another person. 5. All the same, as far as the blacklisting of the present petitioner is concerned that does not seems to be justified, firstly on the ground that the petitioner was never given opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly, though the petitioner has violated the terms of the contract, but the action of the petitioner is not of at a nature, which may entail blacklisting, which can only be done in serious and proven misconduct or gross violation of agreement. Such is not the case here. 6. In view thereof, so far as the order dated 24.06.2016 related to blacklist of the petitioner is concerned that part of the order is hereby quashed. However, no interference is being done as far as remaining part of the order is concerned by which the contract has been cancelled by respondent No. 2. 7. It is further made clear that security and excessive amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him, after deducting the dues, if any. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition (WPMS No. 1906 of 2016) is partly allowed. 9. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1802 of 2016 the petitioner has challenged the tender notice dated 24.06.2016 by which tender were invited from the eligible candidates for running milk bar. Since the tender has already been allotted in favour of another person and the writ petition (WPMS No. 1906 of 2016) has already been decided by this Court today itself, there is no ground to interfere in the present matter and accordingly, the writ petition (WPMS No. 1802 of 2016) stands dismissed.