Back
2016 Supreme(All) 2984
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi, JJ.
M/s. Bright Solar Pvt. - Appellant
Versus
Director Ministry of New and Renewable Energy & 4 Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. (M/B) - 6973 of 2016
Decided On : 05-04-2016
For the Petitioner:- Rajiv Srivastava,Kunwar Ravi Prakash
For the Respondent:- C.S.C, Nishant Shukla
The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders violating principles of natural justice are unenforceable, and the court has the authority to quash such orders.
Headnote:
Black Listing - Contract Dispute - The court quashed the black listing order and rejection order, finding them to be in violation of principles of natural justice and unenforceable. The court directed the respondent to first decide the issue relating to black listing and then dispose of the representation as directed in the previous judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in relation to an agreement for the supply of Solar Pumps, which was disposed of with a provision to raise grievances before the authority concerned. The petitioner questioned the rejection order dated 15.02.2016 and an order relating to black listing dated 04.10.2015, which had a direct impact on the rejection order.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the order dated 04.10.2015 and the rejection order dated 15.02.2016, finding them to be in violation of principles of natural justice and unenforceable. The court directed the respondent to first decide the issue relating to black listing and then proceed to dispose of the representation as directed in the previous judgment.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the black listing order and the rejection order, and whether they were passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the black listing order and rejection order were in violation of principles of natural justice and directed the respondent to first decide the issue relating to black listing and then proceed to dispose of the representation as directed in the previous judgment.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order dated 04.10.2015 and the rejection order dated 15.02.2016, and allowed the writ petition. The respondent was directed to first decide the issue relating to black listing and then proceed to dispose of the representation as directed in the previous judgment.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. The petitioner had earlier come up before this Court in relation to an agreement with regard to the supply of Solar Pumps. The petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of the said supply order had filed W.P.No.11490 (M/B) of 2015. The same was disposed of on 15.12.2015 by making a provision that it shall be open to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the authority concerned that shall be decided within six weeks.
3. The decision pursuant thereto has been taken by the respondent-corporation on 15.02.2016.
4. The petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the said order as also an order relating to black listing which is dated 04.10.2015 and which has been signed by the Director on 04.11.2015 which is contained in Annexure no.4 to the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel contends that when the earlier writ petition had been disposed of on 15.12.2015, no information had been given to this Court about the aforesaid black listing order by the respondent corporation and as such it could not have been challenged, hence the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the black listing order is concerned the same does not appear to have been passed after notice an opportunity to the petitioner and even otherwise the order appears to have been dated in a manner so as to non suit the petitioner for all future contracts including his existing contract. The said order, therefore, has a direct impact on the impugned information dated 15.02.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
7. After having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Nishant Shukla for the respondent corporation submits that the matter pertaining to black listing is not final and the order dated 04.10.2015 signed on 04.11.2015 is a wrong order. In view of this conceded position the order of black listing, therefore, becomes unenforceable and even otherwise the orders dated 04.10.2015/ 04.11.2015 are in violation of principles of natural justice. The said orders have a direct impact on the decision taken on 15.02.2016.
8. Consequently for all the above reasons the order dated 04.10.2015 cannot be sustained which is also evident from the conceded position as indicated by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
9. Accordingly the order dated 04.10.2015 and the rejection order dated 15.02.2016 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
10. However, the respondents shall first proceed to decide the issue relating to black listing and then proceed to dispose of the representation again as directed by our judgment dated 15.12.2015 preferably within four weeks' from the date of presentation a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3.
