Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
CWP No. 1430 of 2013 (O&M)
M/s B.S. Builders, near Geeta Bhawan, Dirba Mandi, District Sangrur...
v.
Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority...
{Decided on 25/04/2013}
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Tender Bid--Order of blacklisting--Jurisdiction of Successor Department--Petitioner had failed to perform the work allotted to it by PUDA and the allotment of work to petitioner was cancelled by PUDA--Therafter, Assets and liabilities of PUDA were transferred to PDA--Held; after the vesting of all assets and liabilities in PDA, the PDA had stepped into the shoes of PUDA and could validly and legally maintain and take all steps against petitioner with respect to allotment which was made in favour of petitioner by PUDA-- Petitioner was blacklisted for two years by PDA was within jurisdiction of PDA--Petition dismissed. (Para 7)
(B) Tender Bid--Order of Black listing--Petitioner having failed to give any response to the show cause notice for blacklisting to the concerned authority, cannot at this stage challenge the same on the ground that the same was either harsh or unwarranted as no defence had been taken before the appropriate authority.
(C) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.20(2)--Doctrine of double jeopardy--Meaning--Held; the doctrine of double jeopardy means that a person must not be put in peril twice for the same act--In other words, no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause--However, wherever an act gives rise to action on criminal side and also for remedy before civil forum, this would not fall within the domain of double jeopardy unless there is any bar which has been created by law--The doctrine has no applicability where two different offences are constituted under different laws--The defaulter can be punished for both the defaults. (Para 8)
Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.: - CM No.6331 of 2013
1. Replication is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Civil Miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
CWP No.1430 of 2013
2. Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24.12.2012/7.1.2013, Annexure P.7, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for two years.
3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm which is doing the business of contractorship in the State of Punjab. Its office is situated at Dirba Mandi, District Sangrur, Punjab. The work of providing and laying 20 mm thick premix carpet on different roads in Parts I and II, Urban Estate, Patiala was allotted to the petitioner by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) vide allotment letter dated 19.10.2010. However, due to certain reasons including non availability of raw material on account of ban imposed by this Court on extraction of minor minerals from River beds or quarries, the petitioner failed to complete the contract work during the stipulated period. The extension sought by the petitioner was declined by the PUDA authorities and liquidated damages were imposed. The matter was referred to arbitration and Superintending Engineer of PUDA was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator gave his award on 14.5.2012, Annexure P.2 rejecting the claims raised by the petitioner. Against the award, the petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, “the Act”) before the court of District Judge, Patiala and the same are still pending. In the meantime, the respondent vide order dated 17.8.2012, Annexure P.4 blacklisted the petitioner for two years. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWP No.16653 of 2012. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. On 21.9.2012, the respondent produced a communication before this court stating that the order dated 17.8.2012 was withdrawn. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty was given to the respondent to take action in accordance with law. Now again vide impugned order dated 24.12.2012/7.1.2013, Annexure P.7, the petitioner has been blacklisted by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the said action taken by the respondent amounts to double jeopardy. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court through the present petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never worked for Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (in short, “the PDA”) and the contract was awarded to it by the PUDA. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore PDA had no cause or justification for blacklisting the petitioner vide Annexure P.7. It was also submitted that contract of the petitioner was terminated for which on one hand, the respondent-authorities were claiming liquidated damages and on the other hand, had blacklisted the petitioner for two years. It was urged that the order whereby the petitioner had been blacklisted amounts to double jeopardy and is liable to be quashed. Elaborating further, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to perform terms of the contract which was not due to its fault. Infact it was due to non availability of the material that the petitioner could not abide by the terms of the agreement between the parties. In the end, it was contended that the period of blacklisting for two years was very harsh and in the facts and circumstances, the same required to be reduced. However, learned counsel for the respondent on the strength of pleas taken in the written statement justified the action f
