A contractor cannot be blacklisted without clear justification and adherence to procedural requirements, including the issuance of a show-cause notice.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a PWD contractor, has approached this Court mainly challenging Ext.P1 order issued by the 1^st respondent herein by which the petitioner was blacklisted. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

1.1 The petitioner was awarded with a road improvement work (Padiyottuchal-Odamuttu Road, Kannur). The petitioner commenced the work on 13.10.2017 and completed on 30.03.2019; within the extended period. Ext.P2 is the completion certificate of the said work. The defect liability period was 18 months. During the defect liability period, the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 26.09.2019, intimating that, during the flood that occurred in the area, certain portions of the road got damaged and hence the petitioner was required to carryout the work. According to the petitioner, the said repair work, as required vide notice dated 26.09.2019, was carried out, to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. Thereafter, on completion of the defect liability period, the petitioner approached the authorities concerned for release of the security deposit and as per Ext.P4 order dated 30.11.2021, issued by the 1^st respondent, the release of the security deposit was made. Thus, the petitioner had satisfactorily fulfilled all the obligations arose from the contract.

1.2 However, despite the above, based on a surprise inspection conducted by the Vigilance and Anti- corruption Bureau (VACB) on 24.09.2019, Ext.P5 report was submitted, wherein, certain recommendations were made to initiate proceedings against the officers who were supervising the work and certain recommendations to initiate proceedings including blacklisting of the petitioner, were also made. Apparently, acting upon Ext.P5, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1^st respondent, cancelling the license of the petitioner and also to blacklist the petitioner. Ext.P6 order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P. (C).No.38301 of 2022, which resulted in Ext.P7 judgment. In Ext.P7 judgment, this Court found that the procedure for blacklisting a contractor were not followed and the order was passed without properly intimating the petitioner, the reasons for such blacklisting. Therefore, Ext.P6 order of blacklisting was set aside by this Court and the matter was directed to be re-considered by the 1^st respondent after furnishing copy of the report of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau and also issuing a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner. Since the 1^st respondent failed to take any action in the light of the directions in Ext.P7 within a reasonable time, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C).No.40311 of 2023, seeking a direction, to the respondent to renew the license of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P8, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same after adverting to the directions in Ext.P11 judgment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such judgment.

1.3 It was further ordered that, in the event of the said directions are not complied with, the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence will be considered by the competent authority. Despite the directions in both the above judgments, Ext.P9 order was passed by the 1^st respondent, rejecting the application for renewal of the licence to the petitioner. The same was challenged again by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.40718 of 2024 and it resulted in Ext.P10 judgment, wherein, a direction was issued to take a decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner, uninfluenced by the recommendation for blacklisting mentio