The Court upheld the Corporation's authority to impose pre-qualification criteria and found that it did not amount to blacklisting the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

G.S.Kulkarni, J. - The petitioner who was awarded a contract by the respondent-Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') in January 2016, for a period of five years for the work of mechanised housekeeping and multi-purpose (patient care) services in its health centres (three general hospitals and three maternity and child health centres), and which came to be terminated by the Corporation on 15 March 2017, for non satisfactory performance, is before the Court in these two petitions. The issue in these writ petitions revolves around a fresh tender issued by the Corporation for the same work, interalia prescribing a pre-qualification criteria being an eligibility condition providing that "the contractors whose work contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory services or are black listed would not be eligible to participate in the tender". The cause of action in both these petitions is identical namely the new tender for the abovesaid work, albeit the tender notices issued by the Corporation are of different dates.

2. The factual antecedents in which the controversy arises may be illustrated by the following facts :

The Municipal Corporation runs three general hospitals at Vashi, Airoli and Nerul and three maternity and child health centres at Belapur, Kopar Khairane and Turbhe. For a period of five years from 2015-16 upto 2019-20, a tender was issued by the Corporation for the work of "Mechanised Housekeeping & Multipurpose (Patient Care) Services" for its health centres. The petitioner had participated in such tender and was awarded contract for the five year term from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020. An agreement to that effect came to be executed between the parties on 2 January 2016. However, immediately within a period of ten months from the award of the said contract, that is, on 5 November 2016, a show cause notice was issued by the Corporation to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why such agreement be not terminated for six breaches and shortcomings in the execution of the contractual work as undertaken by the petitioner. On 15 November 2016, the petitioner submitted its reply to the show cause notice as also requested for a personal hearing before the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner heard the petitioner on 27 January 2017.

3. Considering the petitioner's case in the reply to the show cause notice as also at the personal hearing, the Municipal Commissioner by a detailed order dated 15 March 2017, terminated the petitioner's contract. However, in doing so, considering that the work in question concerned the health centres, the petitioner was directed to continue with the contract work till a new arrangement was made by the Corporation. The following is the operative part of the termination order:-

"17. I therefore pass the following orders:-

(a) The work/work order for Mechanised Housekeeping & Multipurpose (Patient Care) Services in Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation hospitals sanctioned in BVG stands terminated forthwith.

(b) The agreement between Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and BVG dated 02.01.2016 also stands terminated forthwith.

(c) Without prejudice and in addition to clauses (a) and (b) hereinabove, I hereby direct that the work/work order of BVG for Mechanised Housekeeping & Multipurpose (Patient Care) Services in Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation hospitals is not extended beyond 31-12-2016.

(d) BVG shall continue the present work of Mechanised Housekeeping & Multipurpose (Patient Care) Services in NMMC hospitals till the new arrangement for the said work is made by the Corporation."

4. The Corporation thereafter resorted to a fresh exercise to invite bids for the said work by issuing a new tender, so that a new contractor can be appointed, to perform the said work. It appears that the immediate tenders as issued by the Corporation did n