Point of Law : Blacklisting is an 'instrument of coercion' which has the effect of creating a disability. Usually, when participating in a tender, the bidder is required to furnish a statement undertaking that it has not been blacklisted by any institution so far and, if that is not the case, provide information of such blacklisting. This serves as a record of the bidder's previous experience which gives the purchaser a fair picture of the bidder and the conduct expected from it.

JUDGMENT :

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be please to admit the present petitioner

(b) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the order dated 30/06/2018 and Standing Committee Resolution No.714/2018 dated 31/05/2018 produced at Annexure-I.

(c) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the order dated 30/06/2018 and Standing Committee Resolution No.714/2018 dated 31/05/2018 at Annexure-I with respect to black listing being arbitrary, unilateral, illegal, malafide and violative of Articles-14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondents be restrained from implementing order dated 30/06/2018 with respect to black listing produced at Annexure-I.

(e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondents be restrained from effecting recovery of alleged damages from other ongoing works.

(f) The Hon’ble Court may please grant any other and further relief as may be deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(g) The Hon’ble Court may please award the cost of the petition.”

2. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under:

3. The writ applicant is a class “AA” contractor registered with the State of Gujarat. The writ applicant claims to have successfully undertaken number of projects of road construction in the State of Gujarat.

4. The respondents issued the Tender Notice No.CE/RDD/03/2016- 2017 for the construction of Carpet/Recarpet layer of various roads of width 24.0 mt. (80’) and above falling in EAST ZONE (VARACHHA) of Surat city by contractor’s own Drum Mix Type Hot Mix Plant to be installed within Surat city limit with Sensor operator paver finisher including construction / repair of footpath, divider, water table and providing laying / fixing of pavement markings, road studs with other traffic safety measure.

5. The estimated cost of the work was to the tune of Rs.8,93,88,717.96 (Rupees Eight Crore Ninety three Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen and Ninety Six Paise only) and the writ applicant’s tender cost was to the tune of Rs.4,75,01,164.72 (Rupees Four Crore Seventy Five Lakh One Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four and Seventy Two Paise only) i.e. 47.86% below the estimated cost. Having regard to the same, the Standing Committee, vide its Resolution No.1722/2016 dated 24th October 2016 awarded the contract in favour of the writ applicant. In accordance with the terms of the Tender document, the writ applicant furnished the security deposit at the rate of 2% amounting to Rs.9,51,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty One Thousand only) by way of bank guarantee, which was valid upto 21st November 2018.

6. The respondent No.2 issued work order in favour of the writ applicant on 29th October 2016 with the stipulated period of 12 months to be reckoned after 10 days of issuance of the work order.

7. It appears that the writ applicant commenced with the work in accordance with the terms of contract.

8. Our attention has been drawn to page : 189 of the paper book (Annexure : H), which is a document in the form of scrutiny for running bills: