United Rail Road Consultants ... vs Ntpc Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 1397 Cal

22.03.2022.
Court No.13
 Item No. 17
    ap                    W.P.A. No. 2788 of 2022
                        (Through Video Conference)

               United Rail Road Consultants Private Limited
                                 Versus
                              NTPC Limited

                 Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharya.
                                           ...For the petitioner.
                 Mr. Saumya Majumdar,
                 Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal,
                 Ms. Maitree Roy.
                                              ...For the NTPC.

                 Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken

           on record.

                 The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order

           dated 22nd January, 2022 issued by NTPC Limited,

           Shared Services Centre (ER-I) (Barh), West Bengal,

           banning the petitioner from henceforth doing any

           business with the respondent.

The short facts of this case are that the

petitioner was entrusted with the contract for MGR

Track Maintenance work and Colony Maintenance of

MGR Substations at the respondent's site in Farakka.

Admittedly, the petitioner could not commence

the work. The reasons cited were, inter alia, COVID-

19. The petitioner also proposed to bring in a third

party to execute the contract.

Due to the admitted failure of the petitioner to

carry out the requisite work under the contract, a

show-cause notice was issued by the respondent. The

petitioner made a detailed representation against the

show-cause notice issued for termination of the

contract as well as for blacklisting the petitioner for a

period of three years. The impugned order of January

22, 2022 came to be passed thereafter.

Counsel for the petitioner would argue before

this Court that the impugned order is devoid of

reasons. Although it is stated in the impugned order

that each of the grounds urged by the petitioner

showing cause have been addressed, as per the

petitioner, only lip service has been paid and the

detailed grounds have not been discussed. It is also

argued that the order of blacklisting has serious

consequences for the petitioner. Counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon several judgments.

This Court notices that the impugned order was

passed after considering the cause shown by the

petitioner in writing and also after having heard the

petitioner orally.

It is specifically mentioned that the Committee

has carefully considered all the reasons provided by

the petitioner.

It is now well settled that a Writ Court can only

assess as to whether the decision making process has

is in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

In the instant case, the petitioner was issued a

show-cause notice to which he had replied. The

petitioner was also heard in person before the

impugned order was passed. There appears to be

absolutely no violation of the principles of natural

justice.

In so far as the argument of the Counsel for the

petitioner that the order is devoid of reasons; it is

equally well settled that sufficiency of reasons passed

by the Administrative Authority in a quasi-judicial

order cannot be gone into by a Writ Court. The

petitioner has effective contractual remedy against the

impugned order, in the nature of conciliation as well

as Arbitration.

Let us now consider the decisions cited by the

Counsel for the petitioner. The first of which is in the

case of Indicon Westfalia Limited - Vs. - Oil &

Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors. reported in

2017 SCC OnLine Cal 18247. In the said case, the

Court went on to set aside the order passed by ONGC

since a copy of the re-enquiry was not furnished to the

petitioner therein. The facts of the said case are

different and hence the decision cannot be applied in

the instant case.

Counsel for the petitioner next cited the decision

of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the

case of Krishna Construction & General Order

Supplier - Vs. - State of U.P. & Ors. reported in

2015 SCC OnLine All 1798.

The Division Bench in the said case had found

that the administrative order was without any reason

whatsoever. In the instant case some reasons have

indeed been given by the NTPC. The said decision

cannot be applied given the facts of the instant case.

Counsel for the petitioner has next relied on the

decision a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Limited -

Vs. - The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in

(1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases 70 particularly

paragraph 17 thereof.

The aforesaid case is an authority on the

consequences of blacklisting and the procedure to be

followed therefor. While it is true that the petitioner

has been blacklisted, the procedure prescribed under

the principles of administrative law appear to have

been clearly followed. The petitioner was also heard by

the respondents, before the impugned order was

passed. Therefore, the said case cannot give any

assistance to the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has finally relied upon

a decision in the case of Aqua Designs India Private

Limited - Vs. - Union of India, Ministry of Power

and Another reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del

9381, particularly paragraphs 16, 17 and 20 thereof.

The aforesaid decision was rendered in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. General

principles of blacklisting and consequences thereof

were discussed in the said decision. The said decision

would have no application in view of the facts of the

instant case.

For the reasons already stated hereinabove, the

instant writ petition must fail and is hereby dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of

this order duly downloaded from the official website of

this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)