IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
M/s. Sanjay Kumar Brothers, through its Proprietor, Deobrata Sen Gupta - Petitioner
Vs.
Eastern Coal Fields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Sanctoria, District Burdwan (West Bengal) - Respondent
W.P. (C) No.3583 of 2021
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Blacklisting - Bidding Eligibility - Clause 13(e) of e-Tender Notice - [Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others (2014) 14 SCC 731, Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Another (1975) 1 SCC 70, Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others (2014) 9 SCC 105, UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another (2021) 2 SCC 551] - The court discussed the violation of principles of natural justice in blacklisting the petitioner without serving a show cause notice, citing relevant case laws and quashed the impugned letter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was banned for two years from submitting bids in Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, and its account was blocked in CIL’s e-tendering portal without being served a show cause notice or given an opportunity of hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned letter banning the petitioner was found to be vitiated in law on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in blacklisting the petitioner without serving a show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of serving a show cause notice specifying the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken before blacklisting a party, citing relevant case laws.
Final Decision: The impugned letter banning the petitioner was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 27.07.2021 as contained in Ref. No. ECL/GM/MA/CE/21/592 issued under the signature of the Area Engineer (Civil), Mugma Area, Dhanbad-respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been banned for two years from being eligible to submit bids in Coal India Limited (in short ‘CIL’) and its subsidiaries as well as its account has been blocked in CIL’s e-tendering portal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 issued e-tender notice being NIT No.ECL/GM/MA/CE/2021/1502 dated 04.03.2021 for construction work of Hume Pipe Culvert for haul road under Kapasara O.C.P. (hereinafter referred as the said work) and the petitioner submitted its bid for the said work. However, during the tender process, the respondent No.4 issued impugned letter dated 27.07.2021 banning the petitioner for two years from submitting its bids in C.I.L. and its subsidiaries. Earlier the petitioner was awarded the work of civil construction i.e. repair of main drain from Adarsh Colony to culvert including P.C.C. Block Nos.19 to 23 NH(D/S) and ‘B’ type & ‘C’ type quarters at Adarsh Colony under Chapapur after completion of which the job completion certificate dated 8.02.2019 was issued by the respondent no.4. The petitioner submitted the said certificate as well as another credential certificate issued by the Sr. Divisional Engineer (Civil), Maithon Division, D.V.C., Maithon regarding repair of road from Kalipahar More to Sanjay Chowk under CSD, D.V.C., Maithon along with its bid and, therefore, it fulfilled the eligibility criteria as provided under clause 8(A) of the said N.Í.T. Since the petitioner had submitted experience certificates in terms with clause 8(A) of N.I.T., the impugned letter dated 27.07.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
3. It is further submitted that neither show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given to its proprietor prior to imposing punishment of banning it for two years from being eligible to submit bids in CIL and its subsidiaries due to which the petitioner has been put to serious prejudice. It is a settled principle of law that even if there is existence of clause in bid document which mentions the action of blacklisting on failure of compliance of conditions of contract, there is mandatory requirement of issuing prior show cause notice clearly specifying the proposed action to be taken.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner participated in the said bid process and offered bid along with the required documents. Since e-Tender Notice was issued during COVID-19 pandemic period, there was no provision for depositing earnest money or the application money. In view of Clause8(A) of the e-Tender notice, the intending bidder was mandatorily required to have similar work experience as a prime contractor within last 07 (seven) years of the tender notice and should have possessed any of the following (i) one similar completed work costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the tender value or (ii) two similar completed works each having cost not less than the amount equal to 50% of the tender value or (iii) three similar completed works each having cost not less than the amount equal to 40% of the tender value. The petitioner submitted the aforesaid "Repairing Works Certificate" in support of its "Work Experience Certificate" which was not as per Clause 8(A) of e-Tender Notice. The petitioner was declared L-1 bidder, however, while evaluating its documents by the tender committee, it was seen that the ‘Work Experience Certificates’ submitted by the petitioner failed to fulfil the tender norms. Hence its bid was rejected and it was banned for two years from being eligible to submit bids in CIL and its subsidiaries as per the provision of Clause-13 (e) of e-Tender Notice No.1502 dated 04.03.2021
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Another
Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others
UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another
The mandatory requirement of serving a show cause notice specifying the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken before blacklisting a party, as established in relevant case laws.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to comply with the principles of natural justice, including providing a fair hearing, in the process of blacklisting a bidder.
The court emphasized the need for strict observance of the principles of natural justice before passing an order of blacklisting and highlighted the requirement of a valid, particularised, and unambi....
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear mention of the proposed blacklisting action in the show cause notice, as well as the need to adhere to principles of na....
The Petitioner's suppression of a material fact and approach to the Court with unclean hands led to the dismissal of the Petition.
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.