© ^ G! ^ !N THE HiGH GQURTtSF JUDICATUREAt B1LASPUR {C.G.l W.R NQ .^^.6....!200^ y PETITIONER M/s Shyamlal Agrawal .Through, Partner Shri Shyamlal AgrawalS/0 Shri S.K. Agraws} Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Biiaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ;^.-)ss%^-' ^^'^y »>^>sft.: StateofChhattisgarh Through the Prineiga! Seeretery, Departmwtof RuBlic Woite D.K^S.Bhawan, Msintra!aya Raipur (ChhattiSgarh) (^2. The Engineer in Ghief PubticWorks Depai'tment, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)- 3. Executive-Engineer Pyb!!C Works Department PendraOivision, RendraRead . pV\ BistrictBilaspur^GtiliattisgaFh) '3.* '\. ' / : ' '' te<k'taA.8-mlawt( PETn-ION UNDER ARTlCLie22 ^i-f^lCEQiNSIi'H.lilQN ©KlNEil^ FQR!SSUANCE©FAPOROPRE!ftTEM"oiiTSSSN!^DJRiiSF!@8^i- ^./ XI-HC-78 vjwi'-qi^i«<i,tfiTT!wicB,Rirti'<iy<( *ll*1c»l^tTT^ .\AJ.f?..S'\/<i..j3.^. sn^STtra^t'jcrfgd^) w^sooy SD^CTWTR'li* asiTgn^sTwrtw -J; g:RIT<R^Tft<T STI^ST India 10.11.2005 ShriAnand Kumar Tiwari, Shri Sandeep Oubey, respondents / State. Heard. The petitioner hos prefe 226 of the Constitution of and correclress of the order dd by respondent No.S-Engineer'-i Raipur whereby respondent No. from participating in any Department in Chhatl-isgarh for of the order. Brief facts ieading to petitioner herein is a registei notice-inviting tender (for shor^ construction of Achanakmar - petitioner put in his tender p^ petitioner was accepted and th^ aliotted to the petitioner. An a^i on 5.6.2002 between the parti^ ^dvocate for the petitioner. 1 Sovernment Advocate for the <Ri«fo'fliii*)nT^'ls«3'(Ri'(^l'( ^SlKilSiT^ST •red this writ petition under Article questioning the legality, propriety [ted 6.3.2004 (Annexure P-14) passed i-Chief, Public Works Department, has debarred the petil'ioner herein process of a^» Public Works a period of two years from the date terlder iling of this petition are -riiat the ed contractor. In response to the 'NIT') issued by the respbndents for Keochi - Kabir Chabutara road, the tpers and ultimately the tender of work to construct the said road wgs r^ement to that effect was executed s <aid work order was also issued Qn y /'- XI-HG-78 ywi ^Kiin'y, y-a1<<-i<i(i., Rril'<-iy<( *ii*irti^'nq? 3ir^sT (ra^ (•jcilj'st.d) sn^STwft'iitb a8Tran$»Tdi>ii<b ffRttSRwl%?r3n^sT 2-4- the same day. The work was to months excluding the perioc) of could not complete the work, tl] 22.7.2003 (Annexure P-12) invok| agreement was issued to the pe1 the said show couse notice on mentioned in that reply that on the period and non-supply of hot he could not complete the work atso requested for enhancement petitioner was not accepted. 6.2.2004 also requested for the| work aiready executed by him. in-Chief by invoking the clause 6.3.2004 (Annexure P-14) impos^ from participating in any Department in Chhattisgarh for been chaltenged by the petitio^ ground that the impugned ord4 opportynity to the petitioner which •Hie work could not be <BI«[o<4ll<1!1»Y^'faL<Il•(Rli+^l-i ^srf^HSII^ST pae compteted within the period of 8 ^ainy season. However, the petitioner lerefore, a show cause notice dated ng sub-clauses (3) (a) (b) & (c) of ttie ptioner. The petitioner filed repty to ^.8.2003 (Annexure P-13) ond it was ^iccount of unprecedented rain during mix plant by the mcnufacturer to him (tnd sought for extension of time. He |of C5R rates, but the request of the The petitioner vide letter dated Ipaymsnt of Rs.1,98,02,000/- for the (-lowever, respondent No.2- Engineer- >f special condition vide order dated id a penalty debarring the petitioner process of ^jB^' Public Works a period of two years. This order has by way of 'this petition on the r wds passed without affording any S-o e>;plain the circumStances under in time. -°"" terlder idner exetuted SRST•r<ii<ii««,yTTl'(-i<i<i, Rrii<-jy'< ii*i«i^'n^ SII^STq^P (ljc|iji|<g) W^200 3II^?T<RlR-fi4> craT3n^?Tspqro s!(aT8R^f^[an$?r •Bi<i[n<fll *ii*io»~l"^'fe'<II•(RiK^I't ^aif^Taii^ST < k I have heard the learned Learned counsel for tti counsel for the parties. e petitioner submitted that without 9iving cmy show ccxuse notic^ to the petitioner straightway the petitioner was debarred by in^ the impugned order is violati^ 'oking the special condition, therefore, 'e of principles of natural justice.In support of his contention he jilaced reliance on the judgmentof the Hon'ble Apex Court in the maltter of Raghunath Thakw V. State of Bihar and others reported in |4IR 1989 SLffREME COURT 620 also on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the mafter of Kalyan Banerjee Vs. Kaftarhati Mu^icipality ond others reported in AIR Calcufta 21. I On the other hand, tearited (Sovemment Advocate for the State argued that inspite of the no^ice issued to the petitioner, he was not abte to execute the work in some portion *of amount wa^ respondents-Department was special condition of the agre Clause (4) of the special conj ^•ime. On the contrflry, the petitioner asked for the payment of amo^int before completion of work and even already paid to him, therefore, the entitled to invoke the provisions of ^ment and debar the petitioner as per jition of the agreement and unless the said decision is taken on the) ground of bias, same cannot be made subject matter of the judicial^ review by this Court. He placed relicuice SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^aS^. XI-HC-78 \ymi"-^Wi<w, yrf|wi<?, RriW^ ITFRCT^m^ 3n^?T tigq? ('yf^tg) sn^CTwR'ii* asirsn^sTtpHra; B^n<R;trifeT sn^9T tni<<fc9<Ili •iiiwl'^'ls'-cl'iOl'l'^l'f ^3I^IT3D^ST on the judgment of the Hon'i Development Auithority and (P) Ltd. and another reportedj It is an admitted po; compfete the work awarded to the petitioner of which he narrating the grounds on accou the work. However, responden] special coiiditjon of the agreer 6.3.2004 debarring the petiti processof af^PabKc Works &j of two years from the date of before inyoking the powers un) no show cause notice was abdndonment of work or failind special condition of the agreejnent fails fo execute the agreem^it abandon any work, after ex^t debarred from participating Depat'tment works in Chhattis^arh le Apex Court in the matter of belhi ajhother V M/s UEB Eiecfricals En^. fin 2004 AIR SCW 1853. ition thgt the petitioner could not ^iim, accordingly, a notice was issued to jia^ fiied the reply (Annexure P-13) i(it of whicjijie uw^notable to compiete Ay; _ . ^ ^ ^- if- No.2 hsrem Tnvbking the provisions of t;ent passed the impugned order dated >ner from participating in any tender- ^partment in Chhattisgarh for a period irder. It is also admitted position that ^er speciat condition of •tiie agreement issued to the petitioner r'egarding to execute the work. Ciause (4) of the envisages that "if fhe contractor wrtfiin time prescribeeS in N.I.T. e>r •cuting the agreement. He shall be in any •tender for any Pubtic Works for a period of two yews from >• y^Tj '«i«i««, U>-CTI<(I<|<., Rrit'f-iy'i *ll*lc91 ^TI^ sn^si(ray (ijcti^^.g) W^200 9II^?T<P[R'fi* a2iT3n$?rsp»iw s^n<R^if^Tan^sr •Ritifcxlln *ii<inV*ffa'<9'(Rf+5;K ^srf^iail^CT ^9 -$'+ the date of forfeilure of •th fermination of the contra^ parMcipating in the tsnder pr< consequence,therefore,the give a show cause notice to conductand to debarring him for a period of two years. response to the show cause reasons for non-completion o-\ was required before passing filed by the petitioner in re; ar-riye at a conctusion that tH not bona fide ond on aiccouni abie to get the work done in order- respondent No.2 has opportunity to the petitioner ^e eamest money or from the da+e of t" As debarring a contractor from cess for a period of two years has civil jineer-in-Chief was required to atleast fie petitioner callin9 upon him abput his :rom part-icipating in the tender process pn the present case, the petitioner in wtice issued under Clause (3) gave the the work, therefore, respondeht No.2 le impugned order to consider the reply bonse to the show cause notice and to e grounds raisedby the petitioner are of that the department has not been time. But, before passing the impugned lot recorded any findihg nor given any to explain his conduct. In the matter of blacklisted by the Collector. that " no notice had been ^) Ragl(unath Thakur {supro^ a contractor was Tie Court in Para-4 of the judgment held ven +o the appellant ofthe proposal of SP/FS/2005-20,000 XI-HC-78 vd-ca'-«i«irt<<.yTil<H<i<«,Rrti'dy'; *tl*fe)l^TT^ sn^syT^w (ijciijci^) siAsTwR'ii* asiTgn^sTd>*iicb ?^n<R^rfef SII^ST <pi<iF»<J1i*<!i»f'^'fa'ill•(Rx-di't ^srt^Hsii^n s... tHfft bladdisting #ie appellant. It «i Sovernment that there was no\ prior nytice before blacklisti\ig con+ention that there is no t' no+ice is concerned, •ifie respi. principle of ihe rule of law should be passed only after foi It has to be realized ifiat d business ventureshas civil conslpc person coacerned in oviyevent. is an eleiventary principle of n^ any order should have ri^ representatlons against the or\le last portion of the order in s\ appetlant in respect of future Similar view wois taken by the Kalyan Bcmerjee (supra). passed without foltowing the p has the power to have judicial r\ The jud9ment citect by entirely on differ-erit gpounds. Thereflore sfa? corftended on behalf of -the State \requirement in the rule of gwing any an^ person. In so far as the i^quirement specifically of giving any \ndent is righf. But it is an implied cny order having civit consesjuence 'lpwing the principles of natural justice. \lacklisting any person in respect of dpquence for the future business of -tfie \Even if ihe rules do no+e>press so, i+ \tur»lJustice -that parties affecied by ^ht of being heard and making f^ler. In ihat view of the matter, the far as it direc+s blacklisting oftfie dpnlracts, cannot be sustained in law...." ;alcutta High Court in the matter of ;,anyorder having civil consequence "inciples of natural justice, the Courl' iview of the said order. iarned counsel for the respondents is In that case a contractor indulged in XI-HC-78 \duq-qi<lirt0, ui-al'(-f<i<o,finf<iy'( *ll*lc91 ^'TT^ 31T^9T qg^(tjc|ije|^) SIT^STwR-li* aaiT3II^«I**<i(b Roshan/- s^naR^ifeTanSsT ^l-\ assaulting employee of the shows that shovu cause notice blackiisting him. Therefore, th present co.se. In the result, for the petitioner deserves to beallo impu9ned dated 6.3.2004 (Anne^ Engineer-in-Chief, Public Worl^ petitioner from participating Works Department in Chattis| hereby quashed. Certified copy as per rule <pi<i[n<I1ii!*inV^t'ls'^l'(!uii-ci< ^sri^Tan^ai auth^rity and Para 7 of the said judgment i^as issued to respondent No.l before i^ above judgment is of no avail in the f^r-egoing reasons the petition of the tved and same is allowed. The order .j/ajrs P-14) passed by respondent No.2- ^s Department, Raipur debarring the n dny tender process of ®9Public igarh for a period of.two years is Sd/- LC.Bhadoo ~ Judge r 4° ,•< ^ y^ \