[ 3376 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 79 OF 2009 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated , 23.09.200S in W,P,No.:18650 of 2005. on the -file of the Higth Court. Between: Shaik Qayyoom, S/o. Shaik lmam, 42 years, Rl/o Hyderabad. AND H.No.1 6-5-51 3/A, Azampura, ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER 1. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Registered Office 6-3-655/1/A, C.S. Bhavan, Somajiguda' Hyderabad. 2. The General Manager (Finance), A.P.S. Civil Supplies Corporations Ltd., C.S-Bhavan, Somajigauda, Hyderabad. 3. The General Manager (PDS), A.P.S. Civil Supplies, Corporations Ltd., C.S.Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4. The Collector & Dis-tr]ct Magistrate, Nampally Railway Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 5. The District Manager, A.P.S. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., C.S. Bhavan, Somajiguda' Hyderabad' ...RE''.NDENTS/ RE''.NDENTS l.A. NO: 2OF 200g(WAMP. NO: 183 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the learned Single Judge passed in WP.No.18650 of 2005 dated 23.9.2008 Counsel for the Appellant : SRI G.SUNDARESAM Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T,VINOD KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.79 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice AIok Aradhe) Mr. G. Sundaresam, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. 2. This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No.18650 of 2005 preferred by the appellant har; been dismissed. For the purpose of this judgment, the partieri shall be referred to as their rankings in the Writ Petition. 3. The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') issued a tender notice on 25.06.2005 inviting tenders for transportation of food grains, pulses and other essential commodities from various places within the District and outside the District to various places within the Drstrict. The contract was for the period from 01.08.2005 to 31.07.2006. The tenderers were required to deposit a srrm of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of F.aygest Money Deposit. Clause 16 of CJ&ryK,J w A.No 79 of 2009 the tender notice stipulated that a successful tenderer has to enter into agreement within 3 days by rnaking payment of Security Deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- after adjustment of the amount of Earnest Money Deposit. Clause 29 of the tender notice stipulated that a tenderer who fails to fulfill the tender conditions at any stage afler acceptance shall be disqualified and blacklisted in addition to forfeiture of EMD and Securitv Deposit. 4. The petitioner submitted his tender for Hyderabad District and quoted a tender for Rs.lO/- per Metric Ton (MT) per Kilometer (KM) for 16 KMs and Rs.lO/- per MT per KM beyond 16 KMs. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation stating that the rates quoted by him should be considered as Rs.200/- per KM up to 16 KMs instead of Rs.l0/- per MT per KM as the same was quoted inadvertently. According to the petitioner, negotiations were held on 16.07.2005 with the tender committee. However, the decision of the tender committee was not communicated to the 2 petitioner. (]J & TVK, J W A.Nc.79 of 2009 5. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director 'rf the Corporation issued proceeding accepting the tender of the petitioner under Escom System for Hyderabad District and awarded transport contract. The petitioner was asked to enter into the contract within a period of three (3) days arrd was required to furnish the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- within 14 days. The petitioner was apprised that in case he fails to either enter into agreement or flumish bank guarantee, his Security Deposit would be forfeited and action for cancellation of the contract as well as blacklisting the petitioner shall be taken without any notice to him. 6. The petitioner did not complete the formality but sent communication to the Corporation on 28.07.2005 and 03.08.2005 stating that by mistake, he has quoted a rate of Rs.l0/- instead of Rs.200/-. The Corporation thereupon on 17.08.2005 cancelled the contract awarded to the petitioner, blacklisted the petitioner and forfeited the Earnest Money 3 I Deposit of Rs.2,50,000/-. CJ & TVK, J w.A.l{o 79 ofr00g 7. The petitioner challenged the validity of the aforesaid order dated 17.08.2005 in Writ Petition No.18650 of 2005. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 23.09.2008 disrnissed the Writ Petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Clause No.29 of tender notice and subrnitted that the petitioner is not a parly to Writ Petition No.8086 of 1995. It is further subrnitted that the petitioner cannot be blacklisted forever. It is also pointed out that by virtue of the interim order dated 02.02.2009, the petitioner was permittcd to partic:pate in the subsequent tenders issued for transportation offood grains issued by the Corporation. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Limited v. State of West Bengalr held that order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving of a person for equality of 4 ' 1r9zs; t scc zo ()&ryK.J w A.N0.79 of 2009 opportunity in the matter of public contract. It has furthcr been hetd that an order ofblacklisting involves civil consequences. 10. In Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi)2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the blacklisting is equivalent to the civil death of a persotr. It has further been held that the order of blacklisting of a contractor is stigmatic in nature. Similar view has been taken in UMC Technologies Private Limited 'v. Food Corporation of India and otherss. Taking into account the grave consequencer; of a contractor being blacklisted, the same has to be in confbrmity with the power which permits an authority to blacklist the contractor I l. In Kulja Industries Linrited v. Chief General Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL and Othersa, it has been held in para.Z3 that the debarment of a contractor is never permanent and period of debarment would depend on the nature of the offence committed by an erring contractor. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh '? 1zo r+; e scc ros '(202r)2scc55r o lzota; ta scc zt t 5 CJ & TVI{, J w A lio 79 of 2009 and otherss has held that contractor cantrot be blacklisted for life and therefore the order of blacklisting to the extent it has not specified the period ofblacklisting cannot be sustained. 12. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Clause 29 of the tender notice which reads as under: "Any tenderer, rvho fails to fulfill the tender conditions at any stage after acceptance, shall be disqualified and blacklisted as per the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.8086 of 95 in addition to forfeiture of EMD, Security Deposit as the case may be. The decision of the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director in this regard is final and camot be called into question." 13. The Writ Petition namely W.P. No.8086 of 1995 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 2l .01 .1995. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "The first respondent may consider incorporating a clause in the tender notice disqualiling a person rvho fails to fulfil tender conditions at any state after it was accepted. In the light of the above the writ petition is allowed and the acceptance of the tender of the second respondent is set aside. The first respondent is directed to call for the fresh tenders. Insofar as the contract, which is the subject-matter of this writ petition is concemed, the first respondent is directed to exclude the second respondent for this year. No costs." 6 A 5 2022 LiveLaw (sc) 694 ./ 7 CJ & TVK, J W.A No.79 of 2009 14. However, the relevant portion of the orrler of blacklisting the petitioner dated 11 .0g.2005 reads as under: "Further Sri Shaik eayyoom is hereby black listed and prohibited from participating in any tender of the Corporation in future. He is hereby informed that no further correspondence in the matter will be entertained and the action of the VC & MD in this regard is final.,, 15. The aforesaid order debars the petitioner in future for all times to come. It is pertinent to note that clause 29 <tf the tender notice also does not empower the Corporation to debar the petitioner for all times to come. The impugned order dated 17.08.2005 is beyond the scope of Clause 29 of the tr:nder notice. In view of the law laid down by Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Limited (supra) and i\{/s. Chauhan Builders Raibareri (supra), it is evident that the contractor cannot be blacklisted for life. Therefore, the impugned order being beyond the scope of Clause 29 of the tender notice as well as in contravention of aforesaid law laid down by Hon,ble Supreme Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. ) ) CJ & TVK. J w-A-No.79 of 2009 16. It is also pertinent to note that subsequent to the interim order dated 02.02.2009, the petitioner has participated in the tender notice issued by the Corporation. 11 . For the aforenrentioned reasons, the impugned order dated 17.08.2005 insofar as it pertains to the blacklisting the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 SD/.M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// a SECTION OFFICER To Ki. BS 1. The Vice Chairman and tVlanaging Director, The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Registered Office 6-3-655/1/A, C.S. Bhavan, Somajiguda, .Hyderabad. 2. The General Manager (Finance), A.P.S.Civil Supplies Corporations Ltd, C.S.Bhavan, Somajigauda, Hyderabad. 3. The Generai Manag6r (PoS),-A.P.S.Civil Supplies, Corporations Ltd, C.S.Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4. The Collector & Dis'tr]ct Magistrate, Nampally Railway Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 5. The District Manager, A.P.S.Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., C.S. Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. One Ce to Sri G.Sundaresam, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:29/08/2023 ORDER WA.No.79 of 2009 ALLOWING THE WA. \ir'- i)\,- lii.l )fi?I Ii I @oo''" ,X"y'\ C5 ,tY i