wp2232.15.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2232 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Maxin Corporation, through its
proprietor, Mr. Munwar Sheikh Abdul
Sattar, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Near Green medical, Sontakke Plot,
Balapur Road, Akola, Dist. Akola.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra Through its
Secretary, Urban Development Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Akola, Dist. Akola.
Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A. R. Kulkarni, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK
AND
SHRI A.S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATED
: 3
MARCH, 2016.
rd
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:37:39 ::: wp2232.15.odt 2/6 Resolution of Akola Municipal Corporation dated 21-8-2011 cancelling the contract executed in favour of the petitioner for repairs and maintenance of vehicles of fire brigade. By the said resolution, the name of the petitioner - Corporation has been placed in the list of the Companies that are blacklisted by the Municipal Corporation. It is also resolved that the petitioner should not be granted any further contract.
In the year 2011 when the Akola Municipal Corporation was dissolved and an administrator was appointed on the same by the State Government, the Administrator floated the tender for repairs and maintenance of the vehicles of fire brigade and engines. The tender of the petitioner was accepted by the administrator. An agreement was executed between the Municipal Corporation through its administrator and the petitioner for the repairs and maintenance of the vehicles of fire brigade for a period of 20 years. Though the contract was to expire on 14-11-2030, by the impugned resolution, the Municipal Corporation terminated the contract of the petitioner and also blacklisted it. By the said resolution, it was decided that the petitioner would not be entitled to any contract in future. The petitioner has challenged the said resolution in the instant petition.
Shri Wankhede, the learned Counsel for the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:37:39 ::: wp2232.15.odt 3/6 submitted that the impugned resolution is liable to be set aside as the Akola Municipal Corporation did not have jurisdiction to cancel the contract granted in favour of the petitioner by the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation. It is stated that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation in the year 2011 and the contract could not have been abruptly cancelled though the last date of the contract was to expire on 14-11-2030s. It is stated that the petitioner ought to have been heard before the petitioner - Corporation was blacklisted. It is stated that it is well settled that a Company or a person cannot be blacklisted unless an opportunity is granted to it/him.
Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the Corporation supported the resolution and submitted that it was found that the Administrator had wrongly granted the contract in favour of the petitioner without following the due procedure for grant of contracts, by issuance of tenders. It is stated that though some other Corporation /Company had submitted the lowest bid, the contract was illegally granted in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that several disputed questions of fact would arise in respect of the challenge to the termination of contract and this Court may not entertain the writ petition in that regard. It is stated that it ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:37:39 ::: wp2232.15.odt 4/6 would be necessary to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy for challenging the termination of contract. It is, however, fairly admitted that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing before the petitioner was blacklisted.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner would be entitled only to a part of the relief claimed. The petitioner has challenged the resolution so far as it terminates the contract executed in favour of the petitioner and also the decision to blacklist the petitioner. It would not be proper for this Court to entertain the challenge to the termination of the contract in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. We find on a reading of the impugned resolution that in the view of the Corporation, the contract was illegally awarded in favour of the petitioner though the tender of the petitioner was not the lowest.
It further appears that the Corporation was of the view that the contract could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner by the Administrator for a period of 20 years, at the same rate. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the Corporation that several disputed questions of facts would arise for consideration in respect of the challenge to the termination of the contract. Hence, we decline to entertain the challenge raised by the petitioner to the resolution so far as it decides to terminate the contract of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:37:39 ::: wp2232.15.odt 5/6 petitioner, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner would be free to avail an appropriate remedy, if so advised.
Though we have declined to entertain the writ petition on the issue referred to herein above, it would be necessary to allow the writ petition and quash and set aside a part of the resolution by which the name of the petitioner - Company is placed in the list of Companies and persons that are blacklisted by the Corporation. Admittedly, the said order of blacklisting was passed against the petitioner without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is well settled that an opportunity of hearing would be necessary when a person or Company is blacklisted. Since the Municipal Corporation had not granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it would be necessary to quash the decision of blacklisting the petitioner - Company. The Corporation would, however, be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned resolution, so far as it blacklists the petitioner - Company is hereby set aside. The respondent -
Commissioner may take appropriate steps in the matter of blacklisting, after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the Municipal Corporation on ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:37:39 ::: wp2232.15.odt 6/6 21-3-2016. The challenge raised by the petitioner against the termination of its contract is not entertained by us and the petitioner is free to take appropriate steps, if so advised in the matter of termination of the contract. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
//MULEY//
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:37:39 :::