IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2374 of 2006 Between: L.N.Printers 5/54, D.V.Rao Street, Kadapa rep by its Proprietor V.Prabhakara Sastry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. rep. by the District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The District Water Management Agency Kadapa, reptd. by its Project Director. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein in Ref.C4/4417/APREGS/05-3 dt.4.2.2006 as illegal, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to give effect to purchase order in Proceedings in Rc No.C4/4417/APREGS/05-02 dt.27.1.2006 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 2374 of 2006 02-07-2009 Oral Order: The petitioner is in the business of Printing and Stationery. The 2nd respondent notified an invitation to tender on 23-01-2006 for supply of House-hold Job Cards in A4 size of 200 GSM thickness. The petitioner submitted its bid. By the proceedings dated 27-01-2006, the 2nd respondent awarded the work of printing of 2,20,000 House-hold Job Cards at the rate of 4.86 per unit. The award proceedings dated 27-01-2006 stipulated that the cards for which the order is placed should be printed and supplied on or before 31-01-2006 by 10-00 A.M. and that in case of delay in delivery, a fine of 10% of the total cost would be levied. On 01-02-2006 the 2nd respondent addressed a notice to the petitioner stating that it failed to supply the Job Cards by 31-01-2006 and should explain this conduct and if no explanation is received, the tender would be cancelled and action taken as per rules and regulations. The petitioner submitted its explanation asserting inter alia that the award of work proceedings dated 27-01-2006 was itself communicated to the petitioner on 31-01-2006 and there was thus no reasonable time to execute the work. The other constraints of the petitioner were also putforth in the explanation. Eventually the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 04-02-2006 which reads as under: ORDER:- In the reference 1st cited, work order has been issued to M/s. L.N. Printers, Offset Printers, Kadapa on printing and supply of the following item to complete delivery by 31.01.2006. Sl. No. Item of work Quantity Quantity supplied in time Balance Cancelled. 1 House hold Job card 220000 0 220000 As per the terms and conditions laid down in the tender schedule the firm has to complete the work order by 31.01.2006 and deliver the material. The firm failed to supply the Job cards and thereby violated the terms and conditions. The non-supply of Job cards caused lot of inconvenience in launching the Scheme on 02.02.2006. In the reference 2nd cited, a notice was issued to the Firm on the above lapses. The firm in reply explained seeking extra time of 10 days to execute the work order and it is not accepted. In the above circumstances, the work order issued vide reference 1st cited is hereby cancelled to extent of non- supply of Job cards in time mentioned under column 5 above and 3% security deposit paid by the firm is forfeited to Government (APREGS). The firm stands blacklisted and communicated to all Govt. Departments for necessary action. (emphasis added) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner does not seriously challenge the impugned order insofar as cancellation of the contract is concerned, as the petitioner does not wish to pursue the contract. The petitioner is however aggrieved by the order of forfeiture of 3% of the Security Deposit and that part of the order which declares the petitioner-firm as having been blacklisted. The contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is not a statutory contract. The dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent pursuant to the impugned order is also not a threshold dispute. It is a post contractual dispute in respect of a non-statutory contract and therefore as per the principles declared in Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar1, such disputes are not to be reviewed in judicial review and are more appropriately considered before the ordinary fora such as an arbitrator, if there is an arbitration clause in the contract or before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction otherwise. The petitioner’s grievance as to withholding of the Security Deposit is therefore more appropriately presented before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the order of ‘blacklisting’ is concerned, as is recorded in the impugned order, it is clear that the order of blacklisting has been made without notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Even the notice dated 01-02-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent does not sensitize the petitioner as to the potential of an order of blacklist being passed nor does the 2nd respondent in that notice call upon the petitioner to show cause why an order of blacklisting be not passed. It is clear and demonstrable that the order of blacklisting has been passed (as part of the impugned order) without notice and opportunity to the petitioner. This part of the order is vitiated and is a nullity in view of the law declared in E.E. & C Ltd., v. State of W.B.2. In the circumstances, the impugned order, to the extent it records that the petitioner-firm is blacklisted is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed protanto. With regard to the grievance of withholding the Security Deposit, the petitioner may pursue appropriate remedies before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The law that there cannot be a blacklisting without notice and opportunity has been declared by the Supreme Court as early as in 1975 in the decision 2nd supra. The law declared by the Supreme Court is a law which is binding throughout the territory of India. The respondents are not an exception to the law declared. Minimum standards of fairness in State action also require that a notice should be issued before any order prejudicial to a citizen is passed. As the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner-firm in violation of the fundamental principle of fairness and the declared law, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with costs of Rs.2,500-00 (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) of which Rs.1,000-00 (Rupees one thousand only) shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs.1,500-00 (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with costs quantified at Rs.2,500-00 (Rupees two thousand five hundred only). ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 02-07-2009 Pvks 1 AIR 1997 SC 1496 2 AIR 1975 SC 266