IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a blacklisting order must be based on a fair inquiry process, including the provision of relevant reports to the affected party.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent- Corporation. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, the matters are taken up final disposal.

2. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following reliefs:-

“(A) Quash and set aside order dated 19.02.2024 (at Annexure-A) whereby Petitioner and its allied concerns, partners, associates, and directors and/or proprietors are banned/black listed from doing business with Respondent;

(B) Direct Respondent to take a decision afresh after providing a copy of inquiry report and opportunity of hearing and in due compliance of principles of natural justice.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, stay implementation and operation of order dated 19.02.2024 ( at Annexure-A) whereby Petitioner and its allied concerned, partners, associates, and directors and/or proprietors are banned/black listed from doing business with Respondent;

(D) XXXX

(E) XXXX”

3. It is a case where the petitioner is challenging an order dated 19.02.2024 by the respondent-corporation and by the impugned order, the petitioner is banned from participating in the tender process of the respondent. The tender work in question was for resurfacing of roads within the ONGC Colony of their Ahmedabad Asset.

4. The petitioner is engaged in execution of civil contracts and is a classified “AA” Class Government registered Civil Contractor with impeccable record and having completed more than 50 contracts of the respondent-corporation and other public sectors.

5. The petitioner had participated in the tender floated for resurfacing of the road in Eastern and Western sector of the ONGC colony in Ahmedabad asset. The petitioner had bidded in due course and the techno-commercial bid was to be opened on 08.08.2022, which was not done and respondent had sought for validity extension letters which were given by the petitioner and other participating bidders. Thereafter, the tender opening took place on 12.01.2023 and email dated 17.01.2023 a meeting was held and negotiation took place, pursuant to negotiation, the petitioner was allotted the tender.

6. Learned Senior advocate Mr.P.K.Jani submitted that the petitioner had faced certain practical difficulties at the ends of the respondent as a result of which the work did not progress as per the schedule and therefore, the respondent issued a later dated 18.04.2023 invoking Clause 18.5 of the tender contract and terminated the contract on the ground of delay in executing the contract. The petitioner did give a detailed reply and also stating the reason for the delay which was on account of not providing of detail Road estimate, the equipments of the earlier contractor were lying there and the petitioner was not given anytime schedule or planning for blocking the roads to carry out the work and diverting the traffic during the work. The petitioner was waiting for the response to his explanation however on 24.04.2023 vide an Email communication, the respondent-corporation indicated their intention to terminate the contract.

6.2. It is submitted that several rounds of discussion took place thereafter and petitioner was permitted to continue the work and complete the same. For that purpose, on 07.06.2023, once again the petitioner addressed an Email for resolving the issues which the petitioner had already pointed out. The petitioner had also provided a timeline by which the work could be completed and by Email dated 05.07.2023., the respondent had accepted the timeline for completing the work.

6.3. As the tender period was to expire on 05.08.2023 and the respondent inquired from the petitioner for extension of such period, to which the petitioner informally informed that he is ready and willing to complete the work post monsoon season. It is submitted that by that time, the petitioner had carried out substantial work still by a communication dated 06.