IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury, J.
Dipu Das, S/o Late Dukhu Das - Petitioner
Versus
Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 4529 of 2023
Decided On : 24-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 - Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020 - Kind of tender/auction - Bidding process – Blacklisted - Whether the Order is reasonable, fair and proportionate to gravity of the offence can be examined by a writ court - It is also clear that any order of debarment to be passed under Act and the Rules cannot extend beyond a period of three years commencing from the date on which the persons has been debarred. Para 20
Finding of Court : it is clearly discernible that before any order of debarment, it is incumbent on the part of procuring authority which is GMC in case in hand, to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person sought to be debarred by it - It is also clear that any order of debarment to be passed under Act and Rules cannot extend beyond a period of three years commencing from date on which persons has been debarred - It is clearly established that petitioner was not afforded prior and reasonable opportunity of hearing prior to passing of impugned Order bearing no. making it unsustainable in law in so far as part containing blacklisting/debarment is concerned - Order of blacklisting has not specified any period of blacklisting.
Result : Writ petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
By the instant writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an Order bearing no. GEF/51/2023-24/284 dated 24.07.2023 and an Order bearing no. GEF/43/2023-24/328 dated 04.08.2023, both issued under the hand of the Joint Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation [GMC]. By the Order dated 24.07.2023, the respondent GMC has forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit [EMD] given by the petitioner for the purpose of participating in a bidding process initiated for settlement of a parking slot by the respondent GMC. By the said Order, the petitioner has also been blacklisted, thereby, debarring him from participating in any kind of tender/auction under the GMC from the date of issuance of the said Order. The Order dated 04.08.2023 is in continuance of the Order dated 24.07.2023 and by the Order dated 04.08.2023, the lease of another parking place viz. Parking Slot no. 43, H.B. Road, from Khubchand point to Sikh Temple point, left side parallel parking, Fancy Bazar, earlier granted to the petitioner, has been terminated with immediate effect.
2. Having regard to the nature of the issue involved and considering that necessary pleadings have been exchanged, the writ petition is taken up for final consideration at the motion stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. A brief narration of the previous events which had led to the passing of the afore-mentioned two Orders can be exposited at this stage.
4. By a Tender Notice under Memo no. GEF/84/2004/Pt-X/371 dated 14.03.2023 issued under the hand of the Joint Commissioner, GMC, sealed tenders in prescribed format were invited for settlement of 53 [fifty three] parking places located within the GMC areas for the year : 2023 – 2024, that is, for a period of 12 [twelve] months w.e.f. 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024. The last date of submission of bid was up to 02-00 p.m., 05.04.2023 and the tender box was to be opened at 11-00 a.m., 06.04.2023. In response to the Tender Notice dated 14.03.2023, the petitioner submitted his bids in respect of two parking places, [i] Parking Slot no. 43, H.B. Road, from Khubchand point to Sikh Temple point, left side parallel parking, Fancy Bazar [‘the Parking Place no. 1’, for short]; and [ii] Parking Slot at Basement Parking at Fancy Bazar Market Complex [‘the Parking Place no. 2’, for short].
5. Upon evaluation of the tenders for the parking slots, the respondent GMC authorities had found that the petitioner had emerged as the successful bidder [H-1] in respect of afore-mentioned two parking places.
5.1. A Letter of Intent [LoI] bearing no. GEF/43/2023-24/48 dated 03.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner informing him that his offer for Parking Place no. 2 had been accepted. By the LoI dated 03.05.2023, the petitioner was requested to submit the following documents as per due date/schedule mentioned therein with the condition that in the event of his failure, the LoI would stand cancelled :
| Sl.No. | Documents | Due date/schedule |
| 1. | Agreement | Within 5 working days from issue date of this letter |
| 2. | 50% Security Deposit i.e. Rs. 3,38,393.00 [Bid Rs. 2,86,774.00 + GST Rs. 51,619.00] | Within 2 working days after submission of the agreement |
5.2. As the petitioner had also emerged as the successful bidder [H-1] for the Parking Place no. 1, another Letter of Intent [LoI] bearing no. GEF/51/2023- 24/45 was issued to the petitioner in respect of the Parking Place no. 1 containing similar terms and conditions as in the LoI bearing no. GEF/43/2023- 24/45 dated 03.05.2023 issued in respect of the Parking Place no. 1. In response to the LoI bearing no. GEF/43/2023-24/45 dated 03.05.2023, the petitioner completed the requisite formalities including deposit of the amount, asked for by the LoI, and accordingly, the respondent GMC authorities had issued an Order granting lease
Gorkha Security Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi] and others
UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and another
Point of Law : If bidder, whose bid has been accepted, fails to sign a written procurement contract or fails to furnish the required performance security within the specified period, procuring entity....
Debarment or blacklisting must be proportionate to the default committed by the bidder. Proper reasons must be provided for blacklisting, and the principles of natural justice must be followed. Black....
The requirement for a fair hearing and a specific show cause notice before imposing the severe civil consequence of blacklisting, and the need for the authority to determine the period of punishment ....
(1) Debarment as a remedy is to be invoked in cases where there is harm or potential harm for public interest particularly in cases where person’s conduct has demonstrated that debarment as a penalty....
Blacklisting a contractor without a show cause notice violates natural justice, and such actions must not be taken for mere breaches of contract.
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.