Telangana High Court
Validus Infra Pvt. Ltd vs Boduppal Municipal Corporation on 31 October, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.39152 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ...to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings No. MCB/E1/374/2021‐ 22 dated 12‐09‐2022 of the respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently nullify the orders of blacklisting of the petitioner..."
2. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel, representing Smt.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner company has participated in the tender of laying CC roads, drainage lines, Hi-Mast Lights, Lane Marking and Community hall of Division No.27 in Boduppal Municipal Corporation and the work was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 16.03.2022. He submits that on 06.07.2022 the company's site engineer has met the Deputy Executive Engineer and the Corporator of Division No.27 of Boduppal Municipal Corporation and explained the components of the work to be executed. Then, they have insisted the petitioner to construct the community hall in lieu of the sanctioned C.C. road of 1742 sq.m area and 100 mtrs long 300 mm dia sewer line. As the petitioner felt that it is difficult for the company to construct the community hall, on 06.07.2022 the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent. On 12.09.2022 the petitioner has 2 received the work cancellation letter and apart from cancelling the work, the respondent blacklisted the petitioner company for non- execution of the work for a period of one year. It is submitted that the letter dated 25.08.2022 based on which the respondent has issued the impugned proceedings is not received by the petitioner. The petitioner has also addressed a letter on 15.10.2022 to revoke the blacklisting of the company and in the letter the petitioner stated that they have not received the 3rd and final notice based on which the respondent has cancelled the work besides the blacklisting. Learned senior counsel submits that as per the T.S. Standard Specification Rules, if there is any violation order or there is any delay, there shall be a notice to the affected parties and there should have given seven days time and only three days time is granted to the petitioner. He submits that apart from cancelling, the respondent has blacklisted the petitioner company and before blacklisting the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for a notice and after receiving explanation of the petitioner, on that aspect, the respondent has to pass order. He submits that this action of the respondent is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. He is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medipol 3 Pharmaceutical (India) (P) Ltd. V. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research1. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has categorically held that blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains and that the authority passing any such order was required to give a fair hearing before passing an order blacklisting a certain entity. He submits that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner and the petitioner company cannot be blacklisted.
3. Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the admitted facts in this case are that the contract was awarded in favour of the petitioner on 16.03.2022 and as per the said contract, the petitioner has to complete the work within three months and the said period ends by 15th June, 2022. The petitioner is referring to the letters addressed by it, which are subsequent to the said three months period. He submits that the respondent has also addressed a notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner has failed to respond the same and it has 1 (2021) 11 SCC 339 4 failed to execute the work. In view of the same, this action was initiated and absolutely there is no illegality in the said order.
4. The work was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 16.03.2022 and it is also an admitted fact that the apart from the work allotment, the petitioner was asked to do some other work. But, the petitioner could not complete the work in three months as stipulated under the contract and this particular objection was also made much after the three months period elapsed. As far as that aspect is concerned, this Court is not inclined to go into further details, as prima facie the petitioner could not state the relevant facts and it prima facie appears that petitioner could not complete the work on time.
5. Secondly, the issue is blacklisting of the petitioner company. As it is settled law that while blacklisting a person, an opportunity should be given to him and without that a person cannot be blacklisted. The respondent except issuing notices, wherein stating about violation of the conditions and withhold of the EMD, a simple sentence is added the petitioner has been blacklisted. The petitioner denies the receipt of the said notice. Learned Counsel filed the track report before this Court. It 5 is clear even from the instructions that are placed before this Court no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as far as blacklisting the petitioner is concerned. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J October 31, 2022 mar