Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Msv International vs Hsrdc on 10 May, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 7, (2012) 3 PUN LR 180
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
CWP No.749 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.749 of 2012
Date of decision: 10.5.2012
M/s MSV International
-----Petitioner
Vs.
HSRDC
----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
Present:- Mr. Rohit Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Wasu, Addl.A.G.Haryana.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1. The grievance of the petitioner-firm in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that vide order dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P.11, it has been blacklisted by the respondent.
2. A few facts relevant for the decision of this case, as narrated in the petition may be noticed. In the year 2009, the respondent awarded a contract, Annexure P.1 to the petitioner for providing supervision consultancy services for the work of improvement by widening, strengthening and providing side drains and C.C. pavement on various roads in District Gurgaon. The petitioner had been performing its obligations as per the terms and conditions of the contract. On 13.9.2010, Annexure P.2, it wrote a letter to the respondent pointing out the difficulties being faced for constructing carriage way and shoulders of the road. On 20.8.2011, the petitioner sent a communication to M/s Shakeel Haider Engineers CWP No.749 of 2012 2 and Contractors, Faridabad requesting it to submit ATR by 22.8.2011. On 26.8.2011, Annexure P.5, the respondent requested the petitioner to communicate to the contractor in writing of remedial measures alongwith reasons of damages. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 9.9.2011, Annexure P.6 to the respondent clarifying all the points raised by it. The petitioner wrote various other letters to the contractor to do the needful well in time. Thereafter, the petitioner- firm received a letter dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P.11 from the respondent regarding blacklisting for a period of three years. Hence the instant petition.
3. The primary challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that opportunity of hearing had not been provided to it before passing the order of blacklisting. It was also submitted that it was unjust and unfair in the facts and circumstances of the case to blacklist the petitioner-firm for a period of three years especially when there was no default on its part.
4. Controverting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm, learned State Counsel relying upon a Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1971 SC 1093 submitted that no personal hearing was required before passing the order for blacklisting the petitioner-firm.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It may be noticed that serious civil consequences flow CWP No.749 of 2012 3 from blacklisting of a commercial firm which affects the reputation of the firm. In such a situation, the State is required to proceed with care and responsibility before blacklisting any firm and adopting such a drastic step against a person. The principles of natural justice embody opportunity of personal hearing before such right is taken away from the petitioner-firm by blacklisting it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited and another v. State of UP and others, (2001) 8 SCC 604 observed as under:-
"2.....It is true that an order blacklisting an approved contractor results in civil consequences and in such a situation in the absence of statutory rules, the only requirement of law while passing such an order was to observe the principle of audi alteram partem which is one of the facets of the principles of natural justice..."
7. In the present case, it was not disputed that no opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, though the State had tried to justify the action by placing reliance on Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Jyoti Praksh Mitter's case (supra). A perusal of the aforesaid case shows that the issue therein was whether in a dispute relating to the age of a High Court Judge, Article 217(3) of the Constitution of India guarantees a right of personal hearing. That case had no relation in respect of claim of personal hearing in blacklisting for violation of contractual obligation under any contract or agreement. Thus, we find that the order dated 9.11.2011, Annexure CWP No.749 of 2012 4 P.11 cannot be legally sustained.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P.11 is set aside. It shall, however, be open to the respondent to take action against the petitioner after following the principles of natural justice.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Judge
May 10, 2012 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia)
'gs' Judge