SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/s Krishna Constructions, Gumla, through its partner, Jagannath Sahu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 5100 of 2018
Decided On : 07-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilesh Kumar
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, G.A-I Ms. Priyanka Bobby, A.C to G.A-I

Blacklisting or debarment cannot be permanent and must be preceded by a specific show cause notice, complying with the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

Blacklisting - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Jharkhand Road Construction Contractor Registration Rules, 2008 - [Rule 10.1.8 & 10.1.13 of Jharkhand Road Construction Contractor Registration Rules, 2008], [Section 80(2) of the C.P.C], [Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 731], [Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105] - The impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period was quashed and set aside as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and was permanent in nature. The court held that a debarment can never be permanent and before passing such order, a specific show cause notice is required to be served to the delinquent so that it may take appropriate defense against the proposed action. The court also noted that it would be too harsh for the petitioner if any such liberty is now given to the respondents to re-initiate the proceeding of blacklisting against it.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, participated in a tender process for road construction, faced delays due to land acquisition issues, and was subsequently blacklisted without prior show cause notice.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period was quashed and set aside as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and was permanent in nature.

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, permanent blacklisting without specifying the period.

Ratio Decidendi: A debarment can never be permanent, and a specific show cause notice is required before passing such an order. The impugned order of blacklisting was held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and permanent in nature.

Final Decision: The impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period was quashed and set aside. The court also noted that it would be too harsh for the petitioner if any such liberty is now given to the respondents to re-initiate the proceeding of blacklisting against it.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Memo No. 1833(S) dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted with immediate effect.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in construction and government construction works for the last several years without any complaint or allegation. In the year 2009, the petitioner and one M/s Saptagiri Construction participated as a joint venture agency in the tender process for widening and strengthening of Simdega-Rengari-Kersai-Bolba up to Orissa Border road. The said agency was declared as L-1 in the said tender and thereafter Agreement No. 01 of 2009-10 was executed between the said joint venture agency and the respondent No.3 on 29.07.2009. The agreement value of the work was Rs.37,85,20,733/-. The petitioner started the said work after receiving Letter of Acceptance as well as notice to proceed with the work. However, the same was delayed for the reason that the entire land was not provided to the joint venture agency due to failure in timely acquisition of the same and clearance from the Forest Department for removing the trees etc. was also not given within the stipulated time. The joint venture agency also informed the aforesaid difficulties to the respondent No.3 vide two letters dated 14.09.2009. Since the said request was not properly responded, the petitioner’s joint venture agency asked for extension of time for execution of the said work whereupon the respondent No.3 also wrote letter dated 07.12.2012 to the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, however, no decision was taken in this regard. The respondent No.3 vide letter No. 56 dated 21.01.2013, again informed the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi that due to several reasons, the said work could not be completed in time, however, the said authority did not pay any attention to the request of the petitioner’s joint venture and the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the Road Construction Department intended to take coercive action against the petitioner’s joint venture by invoking his Bank Guarantee etc. against which they initially filed Title Suit No. 2/2013 along with an application under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C with a prayer to dispense with the statutory notice as required under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C on the ground that they were apprehending the termination of contract for which recommendation had been made by the respondent authorities. However, the Court below rejected the prayer for grant of leave under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C vide order dated 22.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner and its partner jointly filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2227 of 2013 before this Court and prayed for quashing the order dated 22.03.2013 in which this Court vide order dated 12.04.2013, passed an order of status-quo with regard to invocation of Bank Guarantee and the matter is still pending before this Court. The petitioner repeatedly requested the Road Construction Department to clear the land and provide the documents of the acquired land so that it could proceed with construction work, but nothing was done. The petitioner, however, came to know through the newspaper that it was blacklisted vide impugned order dated 15.03.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15.03.2016 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for such debarment. The land acquisition process for construction of the said road was not completed till 2015 and as such the petitioner may not be penalized for the delay occurred in completion of the said work. A contractor cannot be blacklisted for indefinite period that too without giving any opportunity

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top