Well Protect Manpower Service vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1214 Del

ORDER

1. The petitioner is challenging the respondent's order dated 28th April, 2004 blacklisting the petitioner firm for awarding of contracts for security services.

2. The petitioner claims to be engaged in providing security services to various organisations.

3. It responded to the respondent's tenders for the annual job contract of watch and ward (security) dated 19.6.2004. The date for opening the tender was fixed on 2.7.2004 but the tender of the petitioner was not considered.

4. The petitioner says that inquires were made about this and representation was also made to the respondents for disclosing the reason but no action was taken in the matter constraining the petitioner to file WP (C) No. 11250/2004 which is pending in this Court.

5. The petitioner was later informed that the firm was blacklisted by order dated 28th April, 2004.

6. The petitioner is raising a short ground that the respondents have blacklisted the firm without putting it on any notice and it is violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit admitted that no proper notice was given to the petitioner before blacklisting. They also explain that the action was taken against the petitioner because of his bad conduct and fraud played by it in respect of security services contact at KAB-II and I

8. This petition succeeds on the short point that the respondents have admittedly failed to give a notice to the petitioner in informing about the reasons for blacklisting. The action was, therefore,patently violative of natural justice. The impugned order dated 28th April, 2004 is, according, quashed.

9. It is noticed that the petitioner was participating in the process of tender notice dated 27.5.2005.The respondents are directed to consider and verify its claim and communicative the decision taken on this.