Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a registered contractor with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, challenged an order dated 8.11.2005 deregistering him for three years from 18.2.2005 to 17.2.2008 in all categories of registration. The dispute arose from a tender for water mains work at K/East Ward, where the petitioner's tender was accepted and a work order issued on 11/5/2004 with commencement date 1.10.2004 and completion period of seven months. The petitioner did not commence any work, demanded rate revision, and failed to give contract deposit despite reminders on 22.7.2004 and 9.11.2004. A show cause notice was issued on 15.3.2005 proposing action under clause 1.7(f) and 1.28 of the tender document and clause 9.1.3(x) of Circular No. EECIVIL/2328/Mon & Reg dated 22.11.2000. The petitioner replied, but the Corporation passed the deregistration order. The court considered whether the order was arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice did not specify the proposed punishment and that the order was disproportionate. The court held that the show cause notice clearly stated the proposed action and clauses, and the petitioner had replied. The court found that the petitioner's failure to commence work despite reminders justified the deregistration. The court noted that the petitioner did not even give contract deposit or take any steps. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the order was not arbitrary and that the principles of natural justice were complied with.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - Adequacy of Notice - The petitioner was issued a show cause notice specifying the proposed action and clauses under which action was proposed. The petitioner replied to the notice. The court held that the principles of natural justice were complied with as the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause and his reply was considered before passing the impugned order (Paras 3-4). B) Contract Law - Tender Conditions - Deregistration - Non-Performance of Contract - The petitioner failed to commence work despite acceptance of tender and reminders. The court held that the action of deregistration under clause 1.7(f) and 1.28 of the tender document and clause 9.1.3(x) of Circular No. EECIVIL/2328/Mon & Reg dated 22.11.2000 was justified as the petitioner did not take any steps to execute the contract (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of deregistration of the petitioner for a period of three years is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of deregistration is upheld.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Show cause notice
- Deregistration
- Contractual obligations
- Tender conditions
