SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
M/S Techno Prints – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2362 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10042 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's business and notice (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 2. court's view on blacklisting (Para 25 , 26) |
| 3. reasonableness of blacklisting (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No.72 of 2023, by which the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein, came to be dismissed and thereby the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ petition of the appellant came to be affirmed.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:-
(b) The appellant company is one of the 30 firms, registered with the Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation (respondent no.1 herein).
(c) The subject matter of this litigation is the show cause notice that came to be issued by the respondent no.1 to the appellant firm, calling upon the firm to show cause as to why it should not be blacklisted for a period of three years and the EMD of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only), be forfeited. The appellant firm was also called upon to show cause as to why the loss incurred by the corporation, due to its default in fulfilling its terms of contract, be recovered.
4. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner firm was declared as L-1 in one of the tenders issued by the corporation i.e. the respondent no.1. According to the respondent no.1, the appellant firm violated few clauses of the tender agreement.
5. The relevant clauses of the tender document/agreement which according to the respondent no.1, have been breached, read thus:-
xxx xxx xxx
16.3 If the progress of work at any stage is found slower than expected and if the Nigam is convinced that the printer will not be able to complete the work in time, the Nigam shall cancel the contract in full or in part and give it to other printer at the cost and risk of defaulting printer. In the event of such cancellation, the security deposit/EMD of the printer shall be forfeited and the printer will not be entitled to any compensation.
xxx xxx xxx
16.9 If the tenderer is awarded to the lowest rate printer on the basis of L-1 rate of group/groups and Nigam allots the printing works to the tenderer on the basis of his L1 rate (Lowest Tenderer) of group/groups then also if tenderer refuses to do the printing work or work not completed, in this condition Nigam has right to put the tenderer in BLACK LIST for 3 (Three) years and security deposit and EMD will be forfeited.”
6. The show cause notice issued by the respondent no.1 was made a subject matter of challenge, by filing writ petition before the High Court.
7. The Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition holding as under:-
“1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 02.01.2021 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of 3 years. 23. Therefore, when the order of blacklisting is compared
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 [Para 33]
A show cause notice for blacklisting must be based on reasonable grounds and cannot be issued merely for breach of contract without substantial evidence of misconduct.
Point of Law : Work tender/Contract - Blacklisting - when the financial loss is not caused, the doctrine of proportionality to blacklist the petitioner beyond the reasons shown in the show cause not....
Natural justice requires that prior notice be given before penalties such as blacklisting; however, if adequate opportunity and communication are established, decisions can stand.
The necessity of issuing a show cause notice before passing an order of blacklisting, specifying the grounds and proposed action in the notice to provide the noticee with an adequate opportunity to r....
A party cannot be blacklisted without a clear and adequate show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice, leading to severe consequences.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair play, natural justice, non-discrimination, equality, reasonableness, and proportionality in the process of blacklisting, and the need for a valid, parti....
(1) Debarment as a remedy is to be invoked in cases where there is harm or potential harm for public interest particularly in cases where person’s conduct has demonstrated that debarment as a penalty....
The requirement for a fair hearing and a specific show cause notice before imposing the severe civil consequence of blacklisting, and the need for the authority to determine the period of punishment ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair hearing, specific show cause notices, and proportionate punishment before imposing blacklisting in government contracts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.