9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s admitted by the opposite party that there was no provision of blacklisting, either in the tender call notice, or in the agreement. However, the apex Court in the case of M/s. Kulja Industries Limited [ 2013 (10) TMI 733 - SUPREME COURT ] has in paragraph 17 held that there was no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor because blacklisting simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [ 1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT ] the apex Court observed that the reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of contract, the opposite party-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, vide order dated 19.12.2016, extended the contract period for a further period of 3 months with effect from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 or till finalization of new tender, whichever was earlier. The extension was on the same terms as per the agreement executed between the parties. 2. After the extension was accorded by the opposite party, on 20.01.2017 the opposite party issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it for violation of the terms and conditions of the tender, and also as to why the contract be not cancelled and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) forfeited. It was also mentioned in the said communication that why the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n violation of the terms and conditions of the tender/agreement, and that salary to the security guards has not been paid for several months and certain irregularities found in Employees Provident Fund (EPF)/Employees' State Insurance (ESI) contribution. 4.1 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no specific violation of the terms and conditions of the tender/agreement has been mentioned in the impugned order as it was not stated as to for which period the security guards have not been paid by the petitioner or the period for which the EPF/ESI contributions have not been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed on general grounds, without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract for a further period of three months (without even being asked for), there would be a presumption that the conduct and work of the petitioner was good and to the satisfaction of the opposite party. 7. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in response to the notice dated 20.01.2017, the reply dated 27.01.2017 was unsigned, and in the same breath it is stated that the clarifications made therein were not convincing or satisfactory. The opposite party seems to be blowing hot and cold at the same time. Once it has taken the reply dated 27.01.2017 into consideration, it cannot turn around and say that same was unsigned and could thus not be considered. Even otherwise, the alleged unsigned letter dated 27.01.2017 said to be submitted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the power/authority to blacklist the petitioner, but the same could have done after assigning valid reason for doing so in the impugned order, which ought to have been after considering the reply of the petitioner. A perusal of the reply dated 27.01.2017 would show that the petitioner had given response to all the queries raised by the opposite party in the show cause notice, but by the impugned order a general expression has been made that the petitioner has not complied with the terms, and hence the agreement is cancelled. No specific reason for blacklisting has also been assigned in the impugned order. 10. Franz Schubert said- Reason is nothing but analysis of belief. In Black's Law Dictionary, reason has been defined as a- faculty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 the apex Court held that keeping in view the expanding horizon of principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which governs exercise of power by administrative authorities. Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority is required to record reasons for its decision. 12. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 the apex Court observed that the reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the court; or else, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
