Gujarat High Court
Rachna Building Contractor vs Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12780/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12780 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
RACHNA BUILDING CONTRACTOR
Versus
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
ARPIT R SINGHVI(9524) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Pandya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1.
2. This petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure-N, Page No. 302) whereby, the petitioner has been blacklisted by respondent - Vadodara Municipal Corporation for a period of 5 years with effect from 09.08.2021. The earnest money deposit Rs.20,000/- for Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12780/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined awarding contract was also forfeited by respondent - Corporation.
3. Heard learned Mr. Choksi for learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 10.08.2021, of respondent - Corporation blacklisting the petitioner to award any contract for future period of 5 years from 09.08.2021, is erroneous since the order is non-reasoned order. Further, punishment awarded is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The contentions raised by the petitioner in reply filed were not considered. As evident from the reply filed by the petitioner that the alleged misconduct was subsequent to the completion of contract period. Further, the action taken of black listing the petitioner was only on the basis of newspaper and social media reporting. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner is a proprietary concern and sole proprietor of Rachna Building Contractor. Since the petitioner is in the business of providing contract services to the Corporation and other Government entities since many years, the order dated 10.08.2021 black listing the portioner has cause huge losses to the petitioner's business.
3.1 Referring to facts learned Advocate submitted that the respondent - Corporation issued advertisement on 29.12.2019, inviting tenders for cutting and trimming of trees in the North Zone of Vadodara City along with supply of Tractor and Manpower. The petitioner participated in the bid process and upon participating in the bidding process Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.20,000/- was also paid through demand Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12780/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined draft. Since the petitioner was a successful bidder, he was awarded a work order by respondent - Corporation through communication dated 15.05.2020 for cutting and trimming of trees in the North Zone of Vadodara City along with supply of Tractor and Manpower. The said work order was for 12 months. Learned advocate submitted that pursuant to work order dated 15.05.2020 bearing work order No. 144/2020, the petitioner executed an agreement dated 04.05.2021 and discharged all his contractual obligations. Since the contract was for a period of 1 year from 15.05.2020 it ended on 15.05.2021.
3.2 Learned advocate submitted that for the period of one year the petitioner has discharged his contractual obligations diligently and without there being any fault. However, on account of some video clip and social media report, a show- cause notice dated 20.05.2021 was issued (Annexure-Y, Page No. 255). In the show-cause notice allegations were made with regard to taking of trimmed and cut wooden logs in a private saw mill. It was also referred that this conduct of the petitioner has resulted into tarnishing the image of respondent
- Corporation. However, no details were provided in the show- cause notice. In the show-cause notice reliance was placed in the panch rojkam, however, no panch rojkam, was carried out by the respondent in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure-I, Page No. 263), to the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2021. In the reply, it was stated that alleged act was of 20.05.2021, whereas the contract got over on 14.05.2021. The allegations were also denied. Despite that another show-cause notice dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure-J, Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12780/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Page No. 264) was served. In the said notice reference was made of alleged act of 17.05.2021. The vehicle number was also referred in the show-cause notice. The said show-cause notice referred the earlier notice dated 20.05.2021 and though reply was given to the earlier notice dated 20.05.2021, it was stated that no satisfactory reply was filed. This shows non application of mind on part of respondents.
3.3 However, in response thereto show cause dated 26.07.2021, the petitioner filed another reply dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure-K, Page No. 265) wherein the contention was raised with regard to the contract got over on 14.05.2021 and alleged incident of subsequent date. The explanation for taking the vehicle with wooden logs to some other place was also made, however, ignoring the replies filed on behalf of the petitioner, order dated 10.08.2021 was passed blacklisting the petitioner. Learned advocate submitted that in the order dated 10.08.2021, no reference was made of contract got over on 14.05.2021. Moreover, the order refers the date of incident on 17.05.2021. Thus, since entire contention of the petitioner has not been considered the order deserve to be quashed and set aside. Further, in reply it was also stated that on account of the exigencies of cyclone, likely to affect Vadodara City and the requirement of taking the vehicle to a safe place without any ill-intention the vehicle was taken to a safe place. Further, the penalty by forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit has been inflicted upon the petitioner and therefore the penalty of blacklisting of 5 years which is disproportionate to the misconduct without there being any proof of misconduct, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:54 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12780/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined 3.4 Learned advocate also submitted that the order is dated 10.08.2021, blacklisting the petitioner for a period of 5 years from 09.08.2021. The period of 5 years is to get over on 09.08.2026. Since sufficient time has lapsed and the blacklisting order is to get over on 09.08.2026. Since considerable time has passed, , the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Pandya by placing reliance on the affidavit filed submitted that based on the video clip circulated in social media, the respondent - Corporation came to know about the misconduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, the action was initiated by issuance of notice dated 20.05.2021. This show-cause notice was specific in relation to the allegation and the misconduct by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner responded to the notice by reply dated 25.05.2021 however, the reply being non-satisfactory, the petitioner was served with final show-cause notice dated 26.07.2021. In response, the petitioner replied without giving any plausible explanation and therefore the order dated 10.08.2021 was passed. The misconduct committed by the petitioner is of grave nature and therefore the order dated 10.08.2021 was passed for which no interference is required. Learned advocate therefore submitted that this petition deserves rejection.
5. Considered the submissions and the documents on record. Upon revisitation of facts, it is noticed that the petitioner was Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12780/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined awarded with the contract of cutting and trimming of trees and providing Tractor and Manpower by work order dated 15.05.2020. The said work order was for a period of 1 year and got over on 14.05.2021. No contrary evidence is placed on record to suggest that the petitioner being Contractor has failed to perform his duty diligently during the said period. However, the show-cause notice dated 20.05.2021 was served on account of alleged incident, for which why the petitioner should not be blacklisted. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 25.05.2021 and in the reply it was stated that the allegations are not correct and the alleged incident is subsequent to the contract period. Thereafter, one more notice was served to the petitioner on 26.07.2021 wherein incident of 17.05.2021 was referred and therefore contention of the petitioner that the alleged incident is subsequent to the contract period ended on 14.05.2021, merit acceptance.
6. Moreover, it is not case of the Corporation that bills were raised by the petitioner subsequent to 14.05.2021 and thus, there is implied continuation of the contract. The exigencies under which the petitioner was compelled to divert the vehicles to certain place is explained, however, not forming part of the order. It is noticed that the explanation of the petitioner with regard to having completed the contract on 14.05.2021 was also not considered in the order dated 10.08.2021. Further, not a single document was produced to justify the allegations except the newspaper report and social media clip. Moreover, it is also noticed that 5 years period is to get over on 09.08.2026 and therefore, admittedly the substantial period of punishment is over. Thus, there is merit Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12780/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined in the contention raised by the petitioner that on account of blacklisting, the petitioner is not in a position to apply and participate in tenders of other institutions causing huge losses.
7. Therefore, without going into merits of allegations and other grounds raised, only on the ground of substantial penalty has been undergone by the petitioner and only 1.5 years is left, this Court deems it appropriate to quash and set aside the order dated 10.08.2021.
8. In view of above, the present petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.08.2021. The petition is allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute.
sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:39:54 IST 2025