IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.12391 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7.9.2009
Bahadur Transport Company.
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
---
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 27.7.2009,
Annexure P-12 and 30.7.2009, Annexure P-13, stopping the work
allotted to the petitioner, forfeiting the security and blacklisting.
2. The petitioner gave its bid for transportation of bulk
petroleum products in pursuance of Notice inviting tenders,
Annexure P-1, issued in June, 2008. The work was allotted to it
but later, the same was stopped. Show Cause Notice dated
2.7.2009, Annexure P-8, was issued, proposing to cancel the
contract on the ground that Explosive Licence in respect of one of
the trucks i.e. PB-03B-2154 appeared to be forged. The petitioner
CWP No.12391 of 2009 2
filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No.9143 of 2009 which was
disposed of on 6.7.2009 with a direction to the D.G.M. (Operation)
to consider the view point of the petitioner and take a decision.
Thereafter, the impugned orders have been passed.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
state as to how the explosive licence, purporting to have been
issued by the competent authority but which had not in fact been
so issued was produced. In these circumstances, it cannot be
held that the impugned orders have been passed without any
justification. Moreover, the petitioner has alternative remedy of
going for arbitration in terms of the contract.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is too harsh. We cannot go into this question as
scope of writ jurisdiction is confined to illegality, irrationality or
procedural irregularities. The petitioner may, if so advised,
approach the concerned authority.
6. It has also been submitted that no period has been
specified for blacklisting the petitioner and such an order of
indefinite duration could not be passed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that
blacklisting of the petitioner will be for a period of one year w.e.f.
21.5.2009.
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. It is made
clear that blacklisting will be for one year from 21.5.2009 and the
CWP No.12391 of 2009 3
petitioner will be at liberty to take alternative remedies for any other
relief in accordance with law.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
September 07, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE