The judgment emphasizes the importance of natural justice and fair procedure in quasi-judicial proceedings, highlighting the need for open-mindedness and a reasonable opportunity for the party to rebut allegations.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the termination notice as contained in letter no. 191 dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 1 – the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner was intimated that considering the ‘Event of Default’ as per Clause 6.3 (b) of the concession agreement dated 15.01.2021 executed between them, the date of termination of the said agreement would be 30.04.2022. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside letter no. 204 dated 30.04.2022 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition), whereby the agreement dated 15.01.2021 entered with the petitioner was terminated with effect from 30.04.2022 followed by its debarment and blacklisting. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of outstanding service fee of Rs.7,74,96,741/- as well as total amount of user charge directly deposited by the concerned persons in the bank account of the respondent no. 1 from January, 2021 to April, 2022 in favour of the petitioner.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 1 issued Notice Inviting E-Tender (2nd Call) vide Tender Notice No. 02/27 (SWM) dated 24.04.2020 for selection of the service provider to carry out Municipal Solid Waste Management Services – door-to-door collection of solid waste and transportation of the same by using closed body vehicles with tipping arrangement including labourers. The petitioner participated in the said tender by submitting its bid which having been found most suitable, the work was awarded to it. Subsequently, an agreement was executed between the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner on 15.01.2021, whereby it was appointed as Service Provider for rendering various services in relation to Solid Waste Management for a period of five years. The respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi vide its letter no. 184/sanitation dated 21.04.2022 issued show cause notice to the petitioner through e-mail alleging non-performance of the contractual obligations in relation to the said agreement and provided three days’ time to file reply to the same. The petitioner vide its letter dated 25.04.2022 (sent through email on the same date) requested the respondent no. 1 to provide three days’ additional time to file reply to the said show cause notice, however, the respondent no. 1 did not respond to the said request and as such, the petitioner vide its letter dated 26.04.2022 addressed to the respondent no. 1 (sent through e-mail dated 27.04.2022 at 8.50 am) filed its reply to the said show cause notice denying all the allegations. However, the respondent no. 1 vide impugned letter no. 191 dated 27.04.2022 (served to the petitioner through e-mail dated 27.04.2022 at 3.01 pm) issued termination notice intimating that due to non-performance of obligations by it as well as considering the same as ‘Service Provider Event of Default’ as per Clause 6.1.1 of the agreement, the agreement dated 15.01.2021 would stand terminated w.e.f 30.04.2022 in view of Clause 6.3 of the agreement. The respondent no. 2 also issued letter under reference no. 192/Sanitation dated 27.04.2022 to the petitioner making various allegations as well as directing it to continue operation of door-to-door waste collection till the effective date of termination of agreement and thereafter to hand over all 310 numbers of door-to-door collection vehicles to the respondents. The petitioner replied the said letter on 28.04.2022 requesting the respondent no. 1 to make payment of outstanding dues at the earliest. Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 issued letter no. 204 dated 30.04.2022, whereby the agreement dated 15.01.2021 was terminated with immediate effect followed by debarment and blacklisting of the petitioner.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that