Naratanpet Mustaq vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 9944 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9944 AP
Judgement Date : 6 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Naratanpet Mustaq vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 November, 2024

APHC010480842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                 PRADESH
                                                         [3329]
                              AT AMARAVATI
                       (Special Original Jurisdiction)

       WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
          TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                          PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
                  NIMMAGADDA

               WRIT PETITION NO: 24785/2024

Between:

Naratanpet Mustaq                               ...PETITIONER

                              AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others     ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MARELLA RADHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

The Court made the following:

WRIT PETITION NO: 24785/2024

INTERIM ORDER:

I.A.No.1 of 2024

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for the

respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that the

petitioner is a successful bidder in respect of the work i.e., urgent

repairs to Kambaladine- Kallakunta Road in Km 1/0 to 6/8 in

Kurnool District". After his selection as successful bidder, the

petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.3 vide

agreement No.76/2022 dated 29.03.2022 with a stipulation that

the work should be completed on or before 30.04.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondents are not providing inputs as agreed under the

agreement dated 29.03.2022, which is hampering the

commencement of the subject work. He further submits that the

respondents without discharging their obligations in providing

inputs as required under the agreement, but they are pressurizing

for completion of the work. For which, the petitioner requested for

compliance of the obligation on part of the respondents. While

things stood thus, the 3rd respondent without issuing any notice

and without jurisdiction passed the impugned proceedings dated

16.02.2024 which is contrary to the guide lines framed under

G.O.Ms.No.94 Irrigation and CAD (PW-COD) Department dated

01.07.2023 issued by the 1st respondent.

4. For better understanding Rule 5 of the said G.O. is extracted here under:

"As per Rule 5 of Annexure II of the said G.O., a contractor can only be blacklisted for the following grounds:

i) There are sufficient and strong reasons to believe that the contractor or his employee has been guilty or malpractice (s) such as irregular practices including formation of ring, bribery corruption, and fraud including substitution and in tenders smuggling, pilfering of unauthorized use of disposal of Government materials issued for specific work.

ii) A contractor continuously refuses to pay Government dues without showing adequate reasons.

iii) A contractor or his partner or his representative has been convicted by a court of law for offence involving moral turpitude in relation to business dealing(s).

iv) Security consideration including suspected disloyalty to the State as warrant.

v) The EMD shall also be forfeited."

5. Therefore Rule 5 clearly demonstrates that blacklisting of

any contractor should be done by the head of the department

(HOD). More so, only after prior approval of the 1st respondent

herein. It is also contemplating that the present impugned

proceedings i.e., proceedings for black listing of any contractor

should be preceded by a prior notice to the person concerned.

Admittedly, in the case on hand, the impugned proceedings were

issued without jurisdiction and without adhering to its own

guidelines as enumerated under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated

01.07.2003.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in M/s. Erusina Equipment & Chemicals Ltd., v. State of

West Bengal and another1 . The relevant portion (para Nos. 12,

15, 20) of the said order is extracted hereunder:

"12) the order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity

(1975) 1 SCC 70

in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality.

15) the blacklisting order does not pertain to any particular contract. The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions.

The black lists are "instruments of coercion".

                    20)     Blacklisting        has       the    effect    of
       preventing    a      person       from       the    privilege      and

advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulja Industries Limited

v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others2, where the Hon'ble Apex

Court also considered the judgment referred supra.

8. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

and in violation of guidelines as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.94

dated 01.07.2003, there is a prima-facie case in favour of the

petitioner.

9. Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction as prayed

for.

WRIT PETITION NO: 24785/2024