C.W.P No. 11359 of 2008 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 11359 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 18, 2008
M/S Satish Aggarwal & Co.
...... Petitioner
through Mr.Vipul Dharmani, Advocate
v.
Bhakra Beas Management Board and others
...... Respondents
through Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J
C.M.No.18625 of 2008
C.M is allowed and the written statement is taken on record.
C.W.P No.11359 of 2008
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders
dated 8.6.2007 and 24.5.2008 blacklisting the petitioner for a period of one
year.
The petitioner was allotted the work of renewal of premix
carpet by the Executive Engineer, Pong Dam Division, BBMB vide letter
dated 27.2.2006 at a cost of Rs.19,26,831/-. The work was to be completed
within three months from the date of the agreement i.e 7.4.2006. When the
C.W.P No. 11359 of 2008 (O&M) ::2::
petitioner did not start the work, letters dated 28.4.2006, 24.5.2006,
24.7.2006 and 20.9.2006 were written to it requesting it to start the work but
to no avail and thereafter order dated 8.6.2007 was passed blacklisting the
petitioner for a period of one year. The said order was impugned by way of
CWP No.7767 of 2008, which was disposed of on 12.5.2008 with the
following order :-
” Counsel for the petitioners has contended that
black-listing was done without issuing show cause notice
to the petitioners and even the order of black-listing was
not served upon the petitioners and that the black-listing
was informed to it when the petitioners applied for
supply of tender form vide its letter dated 19.3.2008.
However, in this regard, petitioners have made
representations dated 25.3.2008 and 29.3.2008 to the
Chairman of respondent No.1 but the same have not been
decided as yet and fresh tender is going to be allotted.
This petition can be disposed of at this stage
with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the
representations dated 25.3.2008 and 29.3.2008 of the
petitioners.
We accordingly dispose of the present writ
petition with a direction to the respondents to dispose of
the representations dated 25.3.2008 and 29.3.2008 of the
petitioners within a period of one week.”
In consequence of the above order, the impugned order dated
24.5.2008 was passed affirming the blacklisting order dated 8.6.2007 on the
C.W.P No. 11359 of 2008 (O&M) ::3::
following reasons :-
” i) M/S Satish Aggarwal & Co. never responded to
the requests of BBMB after executing the agreement on
dated 7.4.2006 and the firm only responded after a gap of
two years only with the intention to participate in the
tender of township division.
ii) That several notices vide letter dated 28.4.2006,
24.7.2006, 20.9.2006 and 15.11.2006 were issued to the
firm requesting to start the work, otherwise action will be
taken as per clause 3(a) and 3(c) of the agreement dated
7.4.2006.
iii) That since the firm has failed to respond to the
notices even after the expiry of term of the contract, as
such action to blacklist the firm is in order.
iv) The request/offer of the firm dated 18.2.2008 for
carrying out the work of premix at Ghati & Dam area at
old rates seems to be with the intention of participating in
the tender for the roads of township area which is due for
submission on 13.5.2008.
v) When the firm was found ineligible for the road
work in township area, he immediately withdrew the
offer to carry out the work of road at Ghati & Dam area
at old rates and cheated the department by showing the
prestige of his firm.”
Counsel for the petitioner asserted that neither any show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner nor was he heard before the order of
C.W.P No. 11359 of 2008 (O&M) ::4::
blacklisting was passed.
We find no merit in this argument. By the order of this Court
dated 12.5.2008, the respondents were directed to pass a speaking order on
the representations of the petitioner, which has been done. Thus, any initial
irregularity with regard to notice and/or hearing has been cured. In this
view of the matter, finding no merit in the writ petition the same is
dismissed with, however, no order as to costs.
( AJAY TEWARI )
JUDGE
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE
September 18, 2008
'kk'