Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/S Minop Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1079 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2018
Contract Act, 1872 - Section 186 – Bank – Public service Commission – Claim of compensation – Thereafter respondent issued a show cause notice to petitioner under Clause 4.7 of CIL Purchase Manual alleging that even after submitting written affidavit accepting conditions same were not complied and thus petitioner being authorized agent of Principal committed breach of the contract - In meantime entire business dealing with petitioner was suspended for a period of six months - Petitioner submitted reply to show cause notice – However respondent passed impugned order dated whereby respondent-BCCL decided to impose ban on the business dealing of the petitioner with BCCL for a period of 3 years in view of as well Purchase Manual –Held, If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed in some kinds of cases with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of orders made by them - Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like principle of a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law - In present case respondent issued a show cause notice to petitioner alleging that overall height of both the Road Headers was higher than the height mentioned in the supply order as well as in inspection report which is suppression of facts/furnishing of wrong information and also the breach of the contract. It was further alleged that Principal failed to comply the written affidavit submitted by it - Thus all allegations were pointing towards the default of the Principal. No specific allegation was leveled against the petitioner - Petitioner in its reply, apart from other has clearly stated that it has specific duties and responsibilities as laid down in contract. However, the respondent while passing the impugned order has not stated any reason so as to take the said penal action against the petitioner and thus the same is also in violation of principle of Audi alter am partum - Order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by reasons of rationality - Distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders - In case of Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India Supreme Court held as under - petition is allowed
1. The petitioner has confined its prayer to the extent of quashing the letter dated 18/19.01.2018 (Annexure-3 to I.A. No. 1148/2018) issued under the signature of the General Manager (MM), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL), Dhanbad (the respondent No.3) whereby the business dealing of the petitioner with the respondent-BCCL has been banned for three years.
2. The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that a Global Tender was invited by the respondent-BCCL for “Supply of 2 road-headers of 80-100 TPH capacity with gate end box along with spare parts for 2nd and 3rd years of operation vide NIT No. BCCL/Pur/610278/Road Header/Global/06/07-08/167. M/S Jiamusi Coal Mining Machinery Company Ltd., Beijing (China) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Principal’) being eligible, submitted its bid vide bid No. BCCL/Tender/Road Header/08-09/001 dated 28.07.2008 for effecting the supply and installation which was finally awarded to it. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the Principal had to deposit the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,29,39,021/- out of which the Principal deposited bank guarantee of Rs.1,62,18,635/- and the petitioner deposited the part bank guarantee of Rs.67,20,386/-. The Principal supplied the road headers to the respondent-BCCL which as per the claim of the respondent-BCCL, did not match with the specification of the purchase order and as such the information to that effect was given to the Principal. The Principal vide its letter dated 11.04.2012, wrote to the Chief Manager (MM), O/o the respondent No.4 that the height of the road header has increased due to additional condition imposed by the Directorate General of Mines Safety during the course of issuing “Field Trial approval”. However, it was agreed that if the machine is sent to China at its workshop at the cost of the respondent-BCCL, the said defect would be rectified. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 vide letter No. BCCL/Pur/610278/Road Header/07-08/12-13/688 dated 21.05.2012, communicated the Principal that the proposal for modification of the machines in China was not accepted and additional conditions were stipulated for acceptance of the machine out of which the primary conditions were to successfully drive the machines for 600 mtr. each and to complete the testing of the equipments, DGMS field trial approval and final acceptance of the equipments along with accessories by the Project Officer and Technical Head of the Area. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Clause 4.7 of the CIL Purchase Manual alleging that even after submitting the written affidavit dated 14.07.2012 accepting the conditions, the same were not complied and thus the petitioner being the authorized agent of the Principal committed breach of the contract. In the meantime, the entire business dealing with the petitioner was suspended for a period of six months. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 09.03.2017. However, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 18/19.01.2018 whereby the respondent-BCCL decided to impose ban on the business dealing of the petitioner with the BCCL for a period of 3 years in view of para 4.7.7(iv)(vi)ix and (xiii) as well as para 4.7.10 of the Purchase Manual.
3. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner did not mention any deficiency on the part of the petitioner, rather the breach of the condition of the agreement was levelled against the Principal only. The petitioner was the authorized agent of the Principal and as per the supply order it was entitled to agency commission @ 8% of FOB value. The petitioner, being an agent of the Principal, was responsible for after-sale service and since the sale itself was not completed there was no question for providing after sale service. It is further submitted that there had been no deficiency on the part of the services
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
