Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is the case of the petitioner that he could not produce the 10 (TTs) at the terminal to load the Petroleum products. Accordingly, one show cause notice was issued in respect of each (TTs) in terms of violation of Clause 8.2.2.2. (d) of Industrial Transport Discipline Guidelines (in short ITDG).

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was also served with the show cause notice on 30th August, 2023 for entering into contract based on forged and manipulated documents/false information against tender notice. In terms of the said show cause notice, the petitioner has placed his written submissions with the authority concerned. The concerned authority was also awarded hearing to the petitioner and after hearing the respondent authority has passed an order on 10th September, 2024 thereby the agreement dated 26.11.2021 between the petitioner and the corporation were terminated, all 14 (TTs) were blacklisted till the period on 31st of December, 2026 and the security deposit has been forfeited. Against the impugned order of termination, the instant writ petition was preferred.

Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order of termination is arbitrary and illegal in the eye of law. He submits that the impugned order is not at all conformity with the show cause notice issued by the respondent authority in favour of the petitioner by violating relevant provisions of ITDG. The punishment which can be inflicted is only in respect of the particular (TTs) not against the company.

He also cited a decision reported of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others. Versus State of Bihar & Others reported in (1977) 3 SCC 457.

By citing such decisions, he submits that it is the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court that "no writ or order can issue under Article 226 of the Constitution" in such type of cases "to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple". He further argued that the contract between the parties is terminable according to the terms of the agreement. So, specific performance of cancellation of order of termination cannot be prayed for in a writ jurisdiction. He further argued that the instant writ petition involves several disputed questions of facts which can only be ascertained by the competent authority but not by this writ court. He further argued that the authority concerned has adopted the procedure as enumerated in the contract according to the provisions of ITDG. The petitioner has accepted the irregularities in his written statement. Moreover, he has given an appropriate opportunity of being heard, the impugned order was not violated the principles of natural justice. Thus, the instant writ is not at all maintainable. He further referred several provisions of ITDG and submits that by virtue of provisions of ITDG, the impugned order of termination was passed.

Clause 8.2.2.13 has enumerated provisions for entering into contract based on forged documents/false information. The punishment is "(TT) shall be blacklisted".

In the said provisions of 8.2.3 it has been enumerated as follows:

"However, in case complicity of the Contractor is established even in first instance of malpractice, the entire fleet will be blacklisted, contract terminated & carrier blacklisted along with forfeiture of SD". So, in the present case, it has been proved that the 10 number of (TTs) were not placed at the loading location without the information of the location. It has also been proved that document of one (TT) appears to be not matching. Thus, it is under the authority according to the ITDG that the respondent authority may blacklist the all 10 (TTs) or may blacklist the (TT) for producing forged documents. It is the obligatory according to the ITDG that the complicity of the contractor has been proved or established before termination of the contract.