Blacklisting for an indefinite period without proper grounds is impermissible, and the period of blacklisting should be proportionate to the nature of the offense committed.

Vivek Rusia, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2016 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of blacklisting dated 23.04.2015 for indefinite period has been affirmed.

2. Facts of the case are as under. Petitioner is a proprietor firm called M/s Deep Enterprises which is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973. Petitioner was awarded a work of construction of road Sihasa-Vishnabada Concrete Marg and the length of the road is 1600 mtr. Because of the slow progress of the work the contract was terminated under Clause 3(c) of the Contract agreement. The petitioner was also awarded another work by the Public Works Department in the name of Laxmibai Nagar-Chhota Bagadada, Bada Bagadada-Budaniya Nimbodagiri Marg Sonagiri Marg of length 19.35 Kms. The said work was also terminated under Clause 3(c) of the contract agreement because of the slow progress of the work. Petitioner has already invoked the arbitration clause 29 of the contract agreement and thereafter matter was referred to the M.P Arbitration Tribunal and the same is pending.

3. That vide order dated 23.04.2015 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner the petitioner firm has been blacklisted for indefinite period. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred appeal before the Chief Engineer/respondent No. 2 on 20.07.2015 on various grounds. When the appeal was not decided and the petitioner was not in a position to participate in the tender process, he approached this Court by way of writ petition No. 195/2016. Vide order dated 16.02.2016 the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondent to decide the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petitioner also filed an application on 28.3.2016 for revocation of the order of blacklisting. Again petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition No. 2465/2016 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 4.4.2016. After expiry of six weeks again petitioner filed writ petition No. 3776/16 before this Court in which the order of blacklisting was stayed vide order dated 21.6.2016 and before that vide order dated 17.6.2016 the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the order of blacklisting has been affirmed, hence the present petition before this Court. Later on vide order dated 26.9.2016 writ petition No. 3776/16 was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. That after notice respondents filed return. In the return it is submitted that petitioner is a registered firm under the Public Works Department having registration certificate dated 11.6.2012. Petitioner was awarded the work of construction of road on 26.9.2013 which was required to be completed within four months. Petitioner has failed to execute the said work within the stipulated period, therefore, vide order dated 10.02.2014 the same was terminated on the ground of slow progress of the work. Petitioner was allotted another work on 15.02.2012 in which he was required to complete the work within 16 months. Because of the slow progress of work the said work was also terminated on 07.02.2014. Since the petitioner failed to execute the work allotted to him, Department initiated the process of blacklisting the petitioner under Clause 4 of Appendix 4 of the order No. 7651- 52/9679/90 dated 19.11.1999. Petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 11.2.2015 which was duly served to him and the petitioner submitted the reply on 9.3.2015. The Chief Engineer who is the competent authority after considering the reply of the petitioner passed the order of blacklisting. Petitioner preferred statutory appeal to the Engineer-in-Chief which was also decided against the petitioner. Respondent has contended that action of blacklisting was done in accordance with the provisions of Order dated 19.11.1999 which does not call for any interference.

5. I have heard learned