Point of Law: Suffice it to say that ‘debarment’ is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the ‘debarment’ is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed primarily seeking to raise a challenge to the order dated 21.07.2020 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Divisional Food Controller, Kanpur Division, Kanpur (respondent no. 2) whereby the contracts awarded by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of the petitioner, in respect of certain centres in District Farrukhabad, for the years 202021 and 202122 have been cancelled, and further the petitioner has been blacklisted by the department.

3. The principal ground sought to be canvassed in order to challenge the order dated 17.07.2020 is that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. It has been contended that the eligibility criteria prescribed under the government order dated 20.04.2018 is merely in the nature of a guideline and the contract granted to the petitioner could not be cancelled on the basis of the conditions prescribed therein. It is also sought to be argued that the order impugned has the effect of permanently blacklisting the petitioner which is not permissible under law. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in M/s. Vindhyawasini T. Transport Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (4) ADJ 40 (DB).

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has supported the order by submitting that the award of handling and transport contracts by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies is governed by the policy guidelines contained under the government order dated 20.04.2018 and the same are of a binding nature. It is submitted that the aforementioned guidelines contain a clear condition whereunder persons whose close relatives are wholesale dealers or Aarhatiya are ineligible for award of contracts. It is pointed out that along with the application submitted by the petitioner for award of contract, an affidavit had been filed stating that no near relative of the petitioner was a wholesale dealer or Aarhatiya. The aforesaid fact having been found to be incorrect inasmuch as upon a complaint the matter was inquired into and it was found that the petitioner's mother is an owner of rice mill; accordingly, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, and in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was ineligible for the award of the contract and that he had given a false declaration in his affidavit, the order impugned has been passed, which suffers from no illegality.

5. Rival contentions now fall for consideration.

6. A perusal of the material which has been placed on record indicates that the award of handling and transport contracts by the Department in Food and Civil Supplies Government of U.P. is governed in terms of the policy guidelines contained under a government order dated 20.4.2018. The eligibility conditions prescribed therein are contained under Clause 9 of the said policy guidelines, which is being extracted below :