Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, Nidhi Gupta, JJ.
H.B. Security Services (M/s) – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 16321 of 2020
Decided On : 23-01-2024
For the Parties : Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh AAG, Punjab
The court emphasized that blacklisting should be justified and cannot be imposed when the tender process is cancelled and the petitioner has informed the authorities about any mistakes in the tender bid.
Headnote:
Blacklisting - Tender Process - The court quashed the order blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of two years, as the tender process was cancelled and the petitioner had informed the authorities about the mistake in the tender bid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner firm sought quashing of the order blacklisting it for two years, as the tender process was cancelled and the petitioner had informed the authorities about the mistake in the tender bid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the blacklisting order was unjustified as the tender process was cancelled and the petitioner had informed the authorities about the mistake in the tender bid.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner firm should have been blacklisted despite informing the authorities about the mistake in the tender bid and the cancellation of the tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the explanation given by the petitioner for withdrawing the e-tender was sufficient, and since the tender process was cancelled, there was no justification for blacklisting the petitioner firm.
Final Decision: The court quashed the blacklisting order and allowed the petition with costs of Rs. 20,000.
Judgment
Ms. Ritu Bahri, ACJ.
The petitioner firm is seeking quashing of the order dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondents No.2 and 3, whereby it has been blacklisted for a period of two years.
2. Learned counsel for the parties state that as on today, the period of two years has come to an end.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the opening of the tender, vide letter dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner firm had informed respondent No.3 that the Experience Certificate attached by it with the tender was mistakenly attached and a request was made that the Experience Certificate be ignored. The grievance of the petitioner firm is that despite this letter, show cause notice dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) for blacklisting it was issued. After receipt of the show cause notice, vide letter dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-5) addressed to respondent No.3, the petitioner had made a prayer for withdrawal of the e-tender. In paragraph 31 (at page 25 of the paper-book) of the petition, the petitioner has stated that the entire tender process pursuant to advertisement No. 2818-FCSCA-13143-1 was cancelled.
4. The short question for consideration in this petition is that if the entire tender process was cancelled, why the petitioner firm was black-listed, despite the fact that it had sent letters dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-3) and 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-5) withdrawing the e-tender in view of the fact that by mistake, wrong Experience Certificate was attached by it with the tender bid. The explanation given by the petitioner for withdrawing the e-tender was sufficient and information regarding attaching of the wrong Experience Certificate was given to the authorities before the issuance of show cause notice. Moreover, since the tender itself was cancelled, there was no occasion for the respondents to proceed with and order the black-listing of the petitioner firm.
5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondents No.2 and 3 is quashed.
6. Petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
