Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Mahalaxmi Construction vs State & Ors on 4 January, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 866 / 2016
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 863 / 2016
M/s. Mahalaxmi Construction, Registered Office At Village Bandoli,
Tehsil Sarada District Udaipur Through Its Proprietor Devi Lal Patel
S/o Shri Khema Ji Patel, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 83, Harkat
Phala, Bandoli, Tehsil-sarada, Bandoli, Dayli, Udaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural
Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Raj,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Watershed Development and Soil
Conservation, Jaipur
3. District Collector, Udaipur
4. Cheif Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur
5. Superintending Engineer (watershed) Cum Project Manager
Watershed Cell Cum Date Dentre, Udaipur
6. Executive Engineer, Watershed Department & Soil
Conservation, Udaipur-II, Udaipur
7. Assistant Engineer, Watershed Development & Soil
Conservation, Panchayat Samiti Girwa, District-udaipur
8. Sub-divisional Officer, Panchayat Samiti Girwa, District-
udaipur
9. Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Girwa, District-udaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
(2 of 3)
[SAW-866/2016]
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Mukesh Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manish Patel, AGC
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order 04/01/2017 These two appeals arise out of two separate orders dated 15.11.2016 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7667/16 and S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.11744/2016 preferred by the same Appellant. The controversy relates to award of one contract, its termination and black listing of the Appellant for that reason. They have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by a common order We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. In so far as the termination of the contract is concerned, it having been done after a show cause notice and consideration of the same coupled with publication of the new tender and works awarded to another, who was also not not impleaded as a party Respondent in either of the writ petitions, there is no occasion for us to take any different view of the matter from that taken by the Learned Single Judge that it was outside the purview of the jurisdiction under Article 226 leaving the Appellant to his remedies before the authorities concerned under the terms of the contract both with regard to the termination and the award of fresh works to another at his risk and cost.
(3 of 3) [SAW-866/2016] The only issue surviving for our consideration is with regard to black listing. In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7667/2016, the Learned Single Judge held that the order dated 30.6.2016 terminating the contract did not black list the Appellant but only directed steps to be taken for black listing which had to be done in accordance with law. It needs no discussion that black listing is a serious matter and has adverse civil consequences for the concerned when it is even prevented from participating in other contracts. The order dated 30.6.2016 observed that steps be taken for black listing. It necessarily required giving of a show cause notice setting out reasons why it was proposed to black list, the submission of a reply, consideration of the same followed by a final order to black list or not to black list The order dated 14.9.2016 observing that the Appellant had been black listed has not been passed in compliance of the procedure evident from the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents. The order order of black listing in its present form is therefore not sustainable and the order dated 14.9.2016 is quashed only to the extent that it declares the Appellant as a black listed, but without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents afresh in accordance with law.
D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.863/2016 is dismissed and D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.866/2016 is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (NAVIN SINHA)C.J. Kshama Dixit/ 22 & 40