P. B. BAJANTHRI and ARUN KUMAR JHA, JJ.
CWJC No.1193 of 2022
(21.3.2023)
Arvind Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Government Contract – Blacklisting – any decision of blacklisting is open to scrutiny not only on the touchstones of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality – a fair hearing to the party being blacklisted is an essential precondition for a proper exercise of power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto – in the present case, though the petitioner has been noticed before blacklisting but the impugned order does not show any discussing of the same – no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for having blacklisted/debarred the petitioner for ten years – the principle of proportionality not considered – however, the petitioner was again retained and assigned the same work which was successfully completed by him – impugned, order set aside – Writ petitioner allowed. (Paras 6, 7, & 8)
AIR 1975 SC 266, (1989) ISCC 229, (2014) 9 SCC 105, (2021)2 551, (2014) 14 SCC 731 – Referred.
Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed “for quashing the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Engineer in chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna, issued vide memo no.46 dated 05.01.2022 by which and where under the petitioner has been blacklisted for the period of ten years and for issuance of any appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions as your lordships may deem fit and proper”.
3. The short facts, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner entered into an agreement on 15.01.2018 for construction of road and its maintenance under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sarak Yojna (PMGSY), L143-Tengara Road to Manik Bigha (Track 143), Package No. BR-12R-926. The work was to commence from 29.12.2017 and it was to be completed by 29.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner started the work and completed some work. In the meantime, some antisocial elements caused hindrance in construction of work for which the petitioner made complaint before the local police and due to this reason, the work could not be completed in time. Thereafter, on 21.02.2019, the petitioner filed representation before the Secretary, Rural Works Department for extension of time for completion of work, but he was informed by the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Gaya vide letter dated 30.11.2019 that the agreement no. 112/PMGSY/SBD/17-18 was rescinded and security money as well as earnest money were forfeited and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.85,521/- through bank draft within a week, failing which a certificate case was to be lodged against him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Empowered Standing Committee for reconsideration of rescinding order with regard to package no. BR-12R-926 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 09.03.2020 in arbitration. However, the petitioner received a letter dated 15.05.2020 issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Gaya wherein it has been stated that the amount of Rs.85,521/- recoverable for noncompletion of work was not deposited by the petitioner. Hence, it was decided to recover the amount from another bill of the petitioner. Thereafter, without considering the representation of the petitioner and without waiting for result of the arbitration, the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Gaya invited re-tender for the aforesaid work on 05.06.2020. Thereafter, on 11.06.2020, the petitioner filed a representation before the authority concerned requesting therein that the re-tender of Package No.BR-12R-926 be stayed and he be allowed to complete the rest of the work. Against the order dated 30.11.2019, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1255 of 2021 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 16.11.2021 with a direction to the appropriate authority to consider and decide the representation/application to be filed by the petitioner within a period of three months and as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner preferred Reference Case No. 55 of 2021 on 20.12.2020 before the Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna and the same is pending for adjudication. In the meantime, without issuing any show cause notice with regard to blacklisting, the petitioner received order dated 04.01.2022 (impugned order) by which petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of ten years. Being aggrieved by the said order of blacklisting, the petitioner filed the present Writ.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the work was delayed due to hindrance caused by local antisocial elements and the area being infested with naxal who restrained the petitioner and demanded levy for which the petitioner filed several representations before the authorities concerned, but without considering the same, his agreement has been rescinded and the petitioner has been blacklisted without giving th
Blacklisting or debarment cannot be permanent and must be preceded by a specific show cause notice, complying with the principles of natural justice.
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.