Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Blacklisting in Tender Matter — Petitioner Failed to Show Violation of Natural Justice or Arbitrariness in Respondent's Decision to Blacklist for Abandoning Contract.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 217
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Madhukar Bhikaji Patil, a businessman from Bhusawal, filed a writ petition challenging his blacklisting by the Zonal Railway's Training Institute, Bhusawal (respondent No.3). The petitioner had been awarded a tender for supply of sugar but due to a steep rise in sugar prices, he issued a notice of termination dated 20.1.2009 as per the contract terms. The respondents accepted the termination and refunded the security deposit. Subsequently, a fresh tender was floated for the period 8.5.2009 to 7.5.2010, in which the petitioner participated but was not awarded the contract. The respondents then blacklisted the petitioner, allegedly without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that the blacklisting was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the petitioner had abandoned the contract and that the blacklisting was justified. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to explain his conduct and that the blacklisting was not arbitrary. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondents' decision was reasonable and not violative of natural justice.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Blacklisting - Principles of Natural Justice - Blacklisting of a contractor without prior hearing is arbitrary and violative of natural justice unless there is an emergency or statutory exception - The court examined whether the respondents' decision to blacklist the petitioner for abandoning the contract was sustainable - Held that the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain and the blacklisting was not arbitrary (Paras 5-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the blacklisting of the petitioner by the respondents without giving an opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Blacklisting
  • Natural Justice
  • Contractual Termination
  • Tender Process
  • Writ Jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 48

WRIT PETITION NO. 8114 OF 2010

2013-12-12

A.H. Joshi, Ravindra V. Ghuge

Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni for petitioner, Shri M. N. Navandar for Respondents

Madhukar Bhikaji Patil

Union of India, Principal Zonal Railway's Training Institute Bhusawal, Zonal Railway's Training Institute of Central Railway Bhusawal

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging blacklisting by respondent in a tender matter.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of blacklisting order and direction to respondents to consider his tender.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was blacklisted by respondents after he terminated a contract due to price rise, allegedly without hearing.

Previous Decisions

Writ petition was admitted on 18.10.2010.

Issues

Whether the blacklisting of the petitioner without an opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that blacklisting was arbitrary and without hearing. Respondents argued that petitioner abandoned contract and blacklisting was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

Blacklisting of a contractor without prior hearing is arbitrary unless there is an emergency or statutory exception; however, in this case, the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain and the blacklisting was not arbitrary.

Judgment Excerpts

By an order dated 18.10.2010, this Court had admitted the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner in this petition was that: (a) the respondent No.3 had floated a tender for supply of sugar.

Procedural History

Writ petition filed in 2010, admitted on 18.10.2010, reserved on 9.12.2013, pronounced on 12.12.2013.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Harassment and Abetment of Suicide Case — Prosecution Fails to Prove Cruelty or Abetment Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Evidence of Ill-Treatment and Demand for Money Found Insufficient to Establish Offences U...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Blacklisting in Tender Matter — Petitioner Failed to Show Violation of Natural Justice or Arbitrariness in Respondent's Decision to Blacklist for Abandoning Contract.