Blacklisting in public contracts requires compelling evidence of misconduct; mere disputes over contract terms do not justify severe penalties.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Munjaal M. Bhatt for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi for the respondent.

2. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, the matter is taken up for the final hearing.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

4. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2024, received on 11.10.2024, passed by the Respondent (Annexure-M); aa) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, passed by the Respondent (Annexure A-1);

b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 14.03.2024, received on 11.10.2024, passed by the Respondent (Annexure-M); bb)Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, passed by the Respondent (Annexure A-1);

c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application and considering that the Bank Guarantee stands invoked by the Respondent, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to mark lien on the amount invoked by the Respondent under the Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs.6,55,000/-;

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

5.1 The Respondent Jetpur – Navagadh Nagarpalika floated a tender for “Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of CCMS Box and Street Light with Pole and Its Related Accessories.” The contract value was estimated at Rs.2,18,24,758/- and the completion time was stipulated for 6 months from the date of site handover by the respondent.

5.2 The Defect Liability Period was set at one year from the completion date. The petitioner was declared as L1 for a total contract value of Rs.2,01,31,156.77/-. The petitioner also furnished a Bank Guarantee of Rs.6,55,000/- in compliance of the letter dated 14.10.2022 issued by the respondent on 20.10.2022.

5.3 Thereafter, a contract agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 01.11.2022. On entering the contract agreement, work order was issued by the respondent. The petitioner completed the work as per the work order. However, there was a dispute with regard to dismantling of existing electric poles and its incidental work to be carried out by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, such work was not within the scope of the contract agreement and it was an extra item as no such item was referred to in bill of quantities or the tender description. The petitioner therefore, did not carry out the work of dismantling the existing pole and the incidental work as directed by the respondent.

5.4 The respondent thereafter, issued the notices to the petitioner dated 04.09.2023, 22.09.2023 and 09.01.2024 and separate replies were filed by the petitioner dated 17.01.2024 and 19.02.2024 contending that the petitioner shall carr