Bombay High Court
Maxin Corporation Through Its ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 3 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
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
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
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
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
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//
