Debarment from future tenders without a hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice and is treated as blacklisting requiring a specific show cause notice.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The petitioner on 28.08.2023, had participated and submitted its bid for the work of “Handling & Transport contract on regular basis for transportation of foodgrains/allied materials etc. from RH Kumarghat to FSD Kumarghat via weighbridge (and vice versa) including loading/unloading/handling of food grains/allied materials etc. at RH/FSD Kumarghat, Tripura. (Godown Capacity: 6264 MT)” which was tendered by the FCI on 07.08.2023. Immediately after submission of its bids, the petitioner realized that it had quoted an unrealistically low rate for the work and as such, requested the respondents to allow it to withdraw its bid. The said offer for withdrawal was not acceded to by the respondents, and by way of the impugned order dated 15.11.2023, the contract of the petitioner was terminated and at the same time, the petitioner debarred from participating in any future tenders of the respondent for a period of 2(two) years. Being aggrieved with the debarment, without affording an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

2. Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.I. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents in not allowing the withdrawal of the petitioner’s tender, inspite of a specific request, and the representations which were preferred after the Letter of Acceptance of Tender dated 20.10.2023, had been issued, is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. He submits that the subsequent action in terminating the contract vide the impugned order dated 15.11.2023, and at the same time debarring the petitioner from participating in any future tenders of the respondent for a period of 2(two) years, which amounts to blacklisting, had been done without affording the petitioner any chance to show cause or to be heard. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel has cited the following decisions.

(i) South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. vs. S. Kumar Associates AKM (JV), (2021) 9 SCC 166

(ii) UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 551

(iii) Ms Chaitanya Projects vs. State of Meghalaya , W.P. (C) No. 309 of 2014 dated 2.12.2015

3. Learned Senior counsel has also contended that, debarment being no different from blacklisting, the denial of any opportunity to show cause has affected the entire business prospects of the petitioner, who is engaged in this kind of business only. He therefore prays that, the impugned order by which the contract is terminated and the petitioner debarred from participating in future tenders with the respondent Corporation be set aside and quashed.

4. Mr. B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent in reply to the submissions, has drawn the attention of this Court to the clauses in the General Information to Tenderers and submits that, clause 7(iv) has specifically provided that, on the tenderer’s failure after the communication of acceptance of the tender, to furnish security deposit, the contract shall be summarily terminated, that any losses or damages suffered will be recovered from the contractor, and that the contractor will also be debarred from participating in any future tenders of the Corporation for a period of 2(two) years. He also submits that in the Tender Submission Undertaking signed by the petitioner at Para – 8(l) thereof, it has been clearly stated that, no opportunity shall be given to the tenderer to alter, modify or withdraw any offer at any stage after submission of the tender. He therefore contends that, the petitioner being bound by the terms as aforementioned, and having sought withdrawal after being the successful bidder, no relief is available, or permissible and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials as placed, it is first noted from the submissions that, the petitioner is more aggrieved with th