A division bench of the Justice Vipin Sanghi and R.C. Khulbe of Uttarakhand HC has dismissed the petition in which he challenged the order whereby the blacklisting order passed against the respondent no. 4 has been recalled. The court is of the view that petitioner being a competitor has no right to be heard before passing such order on mere ground that he point out illegality in passing such order.
Facts:
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had challenged the award of the contract in favour of respondent no. 4, on the ground that he had relied upon a forged and fabricated experience certificate to obtain the contract. The Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed. It was found that the experience certificate provided by the respondent no. 4 was, indeed, not a correct experience certificate, and, consequently, the contract awarded in favour of the respondent no. 4 was cancelled; its security deposit forfeited, and; blacklisting order was passed against him on 27.12.2017.
It appeaed that, after a few months of the blacklisting, the respondent no. 4 raised a grievance with regard to the blacklisting order being passed without hearing him. The Writ Petition preferred by the respondent no. 4 was disposed of and the respondentauthorities were asked to reconsider the matter, and take appropriate action. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 represented to the respondent-authorities, and, on the basis of the legal advice, the respondent-authorities withdrew the blacklisting order passed against the respondent no. 4 by the impugned order dated 07.02.2019. As a consequence of the furnishing of the false experience certificate, the respondent no. 4, therefore, suffered cancellation of the contract; forfeiture of the security deposit, and; blacklisting for the period from 27.12.2017 to 07.02.2019 i.e. about 14 months.
Observations of the Court
The court was of the view that it was a matter entirely between the respondentauthorities and the respondent no. 4 as to whether, or not, the blacklisting of respondent no. 4 should have been continued, and, if so, on what terms and conditions. The petitioner, being a competitor, had no right to be heard in such proceedings. Merely because blacklisting of the respondent no. 4 occurred on account of the illegality pointed out by the petitioner, it does not mean that the petitioner had a right to be heard by the respondent-authorities, with regard to the blacklisting of the respondent no. 4.
The court considering the fact that the contract was cancelled; the security deposit of respondent no. 4 was forfeited, and; the respondent no. 4 suffered blacklisting for nearly 14 months, the respondentauthorities were justified in taking the view that the respondent no. 4 had been subjected to sufficient penalty for its wrongdoing. It is not for the petitioner to judge the extent of punishment or penalty that the respondent no. 4 should have been subjected to, for its wrongful act.
Decision:
The petition was dismissed as the court is of the view that there is no merit in the submission of respondents that petitioner being a competitor was having any right to be heard before withdrawing the black listing orders.
Case: Krishan Ballabh vs State of Uttarakhand and others
Citation: WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 2759 OF 2022
Coram: Justice Vipin Sanghi and R.C. Khulbe
Dated: 11.11.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :