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'