Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Reliance was also placed upon Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd v. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 3707 to argue that the show cause notice which was given was sufficient compliance of the requirement of natural justice. Once the show cause notice was issued and the reply was considered, the Petitioner could not insist on a hearing. Finally, it was submitted that the forgery/fabrication was not even being justified by the Petitioner. In M/s Patel Engineering Limited v. UOI & Anr 2012 (11) SCC 257 it was observed at para 26 :

24. Reliance was placed on Patel Engineering (supra) to argue that in a case where the bidder was declared successful and he walked out from a contract, the Court came to the conclusion that the bidder had committed a Digitally Signed By:SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2020 20:27:12 legal wrong. The contractor was guilty of dereliction and huge financial loss was caused to the Petitioner. The decision to black list the contractor was held to be neither irrational nor perverse.

Thus, as per the above judgment, a hearing is not mandatory but what is necessary is issuance of a show cause and an opportunity of reply, prior to any order being passed.

43. In M/s. Patel Engineering (supra), defining blacklisting, the Supreme Court observed as under:

"11. The concept of Blacklisting is explained by this Court in M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Limited v. Union of India and others, (1975) 1 SCC 70, as under: