Bombay High Court
M/S. Ideal Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ... on 2 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2024:BHC-AS:35503-DB Ideal Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd v
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr
505-aswp-12473-2024-J (2).doc
Ashwini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12473 OF 2024
M/s Ideal Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd.,
Through its Director
Mr Vipul Maheshwari
Having Office at Ghanshyam Niwas,
1st Floor, Furniture Market, Near UBI,
Ulhasnagar- 421 003, Maharashtra. ...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation,
Through its Commissioner, Office at-
Mumbai- Pune Highway, Kharalwadi,
Pune - 411 018.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Copy served to Govt. Pleader,
High Court, Mumbai. ...Respondents
Digitally
signed by
ASHWINI
ASHWINI
H GAJAKOSH
GAJAKOSH Date:
2024.09.04
A PPEARANCES
14:35:04
+0530
For the Petitioner Mr Surel S Shah, Senior Advocate,
with Sumedh S Modak.
For Respondent No. 1- Mr Kedar B Dighe.
PCMC
Page 1 of 5
2nd September 2024
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 21:05:06 :::
Ideal Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd v
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr
505-aswp-12473-2024-J (2).doc
For Respondent-State Mr SS Bhende, AGP.
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED : 2nd September 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):-
1. Heard Mr Surel Shah, learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner, Mr Kedar Dighe, for the Pune Municipal Corporation
("PCMC") and Ms SS Bhende, learned AGP for the Respondent
State.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request
and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner challenges the PCMC's order dated 30th July
2024 blacklisting the Petitioner for a period of three years in the
context of a contract for the supply of Poly-Aluminium Chloride
liquid and Poly-Aluminium Chloride powder to the PCMC.
Admittedly, neither was any show-cause notice issued nor was any
hearing afforded to the Petitioner before the impugned order dated
30th July 2024 was made.
4. The law regarding blacklisting of contractors is quite clear.
Such an order visits the contractor with serious civil
consequences. Therefore, there has to be compliance with the
2nd September 2024
Ideal Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd v
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr
505-aswp-12473-2024-J (2).doc
principles of natural justice and fair play before such an order is
made.
5. In the case of M/s Guruji Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs The
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pune1, Writ Petition
No. 7432 of 2024 decided on 10th July 2024, we had to set aside a
similar blacklisting order made by PCMC. In the said decision, we
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of UMC Technologies Pvt Ltd v Food Corporation of India & Anr .2
Since this was a decision concerning the order of the PCMC
blacklisting the Petitioner without compliance with principles of
natural justice, it was expected by the PCMC to follow the law in
M/s Guruji Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (supra).
6. In UMC Technologies Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the first principle of civilised jurisprudence is
that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or
whose right or interests are being affected should be given a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of
natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority
concerned should notify the affected party of the case against him
so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate, and
the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed
should be explicitly mentioned and unambiguously. An order
travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and
without jurisdiction to that extent.
1 2024:BHC-AS:27374-DB.
2 (2021) 2 SC 551.
2nd September 2024
Ideal Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd v
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr
505-aswp-12473-2024-J (2).doc
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the specific context of
blacklisting a contractor, held that it was essential for the notice to
specify the particular grounds based on which an action was
proposed to be taken to enable the noticee to answer the case
against him. A Court held that this requirement should be
particularly observed where severe consequences of blacklisting
and stigmatisation accrue to the person/entity being blacklisted.
The Court held that for a show-cause notice to constitute the valid
basis of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or
its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that
there was an intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to
blacklisting the noticee. Such a clear notice is essential for
ensuring that the person against whom the penalty of blacklisting
is intended to be imposed has an adequate, informed and
meaningful opportunity to show cause against his possible
blacklisting. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was
observed that the plain reading of the notice makes it clear that the
action of blacklisting was neither expressly proposed nor could it
have been inferred from the language employed in the show-
cause notice.
8. Applying the ratio of the above decisions to the facts of the
present case, the impugned order dated 30th July 2024 is liable to
be set aside and is hereby set aside. However, the quashing of this
impugned order dated 30th July 2024 will not preclude the PCMC
from issuing a show-cause notice to the Petitioner containing the
proposal to blacklist the Petitioner. After hearing the Petitioner and
considering the cause shown by him, the PCMC is free to decide
the issue of blacklisting following the law.
2nd September 2024
Ideal Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd v
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr
505-aswp-12473-2024-J (2).doc
9. The PCMC shall pay the Kirtikar Law Library Rs. 5,000/- in
costs. This is mainly because, hardly ten days before the impugned
order was made, we had quashed a similar order of blacklisting
without complying with the principles of natural justice. Still, the
impugned order was made without complying with the principles
of natural justice. Admittedly, there was no show-cause notice for
blacklisting in this matter.
10. The rule is accordingly made absolute to the above extent.
All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
2nd September 2024
