IMPORTANT POINT
The court found that the appellant had been afforded adequate opportunity to put forth their contentions and that the order 'banning of business' was fully justified under the terms and conditions of the contract.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 13.10.2023 in WPA 19005 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant to quash the communications sent by the respondent dated March 15, 2023, March 29, 2023, April 1, 2023, May 28, 2023, June 10, 2023, July 21, 2023, and August 1, 2023; to quash the respondent ECL authorities with regard to the invocation of the bank guarantee and for other incidental and ancillary reliefs. By the impugned order, the writ petition was dismissed.

2. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the only issue that the appellant canvasses before this court in this appeal is the correctness of the order passed by the respondent banning the appellant from participating in any tender/business with the respondent for a period of three years. It is contended that the appellant has been punished twice by terminating the contract awarded to the appellant and another by banning of business of the appellant which is not permissible in law and it is hit by the principles of double jeopardy.

3. Further it is submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition does not reflect that the appellant’s reply to the show cause notice has been considered at all. It is further submitted that the Learned Single Bench ought to have considered that the respondents failed to fulfil their reciprocal obligations apropos handing over of adequate lands and/or mining area and it is manifest that the respondents had no intention of fulfilling the reciprocal obligations under the contract. It is submitted that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents is without application of mind and without considering any of the responses given by the appellants to the show cause notices. The order impugned in the writ petition is devoid of reasons and therefore liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent on the other hand sought to sustain the order passed in the writ petition by contending that the learned Single Bench rightly took into consideration the conduct of the appellant and the various notices which were issued by the respondent to the appellant and that the appellant had been afforded adequate opportunity to put forth their contentions and the order “banning of business” is fully justified and the terms and conditions of contract clearly envisages such an order to be made considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, it is submitted that the order under appeal does not call for any interference.

5. We have elaborately heard the learned advocates for the parties and carefully considered and materials placed on record.

6. The respondent issued a e-tender notice dated 26.02.2020 inviting tenders from experienced contractors having Digital Signature Certificate issued from any agency authorized by the Controller of Certifying Authority, (CCA) Government of India for the working of hiring of HEMM for Extraction and Transportation of 16.70 L.Te of Coal, Removal and Transportation of 106.80 L.Cum of OB and Re-handling of 37.30 L.Cum OB at Nincha (Amkola Extention) OC Patch in Satgram Area. The appellant participated in the e-tender and submitted its bid and ultimately by order dated 09.07.2020 letter of approval was granted to the appellant accepting their offer. The appellant by letter dated 21.07.2020 accepted the work order and assured their best services at all times. The requisite documentations were completed and by order dated 21.07.2020 work order was issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant had signed all the documents that were required to be signed thereby irrevocably accepting the terms and conditions stipulated in the various documents.

7. On 15.03.2023,a show cause notice for termination of the contract was issued by referring to Clause 9(a) and Clause 9(b) as per the provision of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)an