Mindlogicx Infratec Limited vs M.P. Medical University, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3685 MP

                                  1

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          WP-12626-2021
 (MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LIMITED vs M.P. MEDICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY,
                     JABALPUR AND OTHERS)



JABALPUR
DATED : 29.07.2021
        Heard through Video Conferencing.
        Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel with Shri
Kunal Thakre, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

Shri Kunal Thakre, learned counsel has stated that since there may be a conflict of interest between the respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 and 3, therefore, he wants to withdraw his Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

This prayer is not opposed by counsel for any of the parties, hence it is allowed and Shri Kunal Thakre, learned counsel is permitted to withdraw his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2021 whereby the agreement dated 16.07.2018 executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1/University has been terminated and the petitioner has been blacklisted.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.4, who does not have any power in this regard. Referring to Section 25(ix) of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 2011, he has submitted that the power lies with the Executive Council and that the contract itself was awarded by the

approval of the Executive Council, therefore, the termination order is without jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the impugned order is said to have been passed with the approval of the Vice Chancellor but even the Vice Chancellor has no power independent of the Executive Council to approve it and there is no provision to delegate the power of termination of the contract. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been blacklisted by the impugned order without giving any opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2014) 9 SCC 105; Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 1 SCC 804; and UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and another, (2021) 2 SCC 551. He has also submitted that the notice of blacklisting (Annexure P/6) dated 24.04.2021 was issued by Dr. Tripti Gupta, Incharge Examination Controller, who herself was not competent to issue such a notice, therefore, on that basis the impugned order could not have been passed. He has further submitted that the petitioner was doing the work satisfactorily and the certificates were issued to the petitioner in this regard right from 2018 till February, 2021 and in this regard he has referred to the certificates collectively filed as Annexure P/3. He has further submitted that in the impugned order, there is a reference to the FIR (Annexure P/15) but in that FIR the only allegation is in respect of award of work to the petitioner at a higher rate and there is no allegation of any corruption or corrupt practice against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the blacklisting has been done for the indefinite period, which is not permissible in law. He has also pointed out that the entire action

has been taken at the instance of the respondent No.4, who was on deputation in the respondent No.1/University and has been repatriated on 14.07.2021 and referring to the reply of the respondent No.4 he has submitted that the reply has been filed after repatriation yet the confidential information and documents have been mentioned therein. Referring to the reply of the respondent No.4, he has submitted that by the communication dated 03.06.2021 at the request of the respondent No.4, the three- member Committee was constituted by Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya but the respondent No.4 at his own had included one Smt. Shweta Shrivastava as member of the Committee by order dated 05.06.2021 and the said newly inducted member Smt. Shweta Shrivastava vide order dated 05.06.2021 herself had inducted two more members Shri Arvind Mishra and Shri Avinash Rajput on the ground that the IT experts appointed by the RGPV University are not available. He submits that the report of such a Committee is not creditable and that the respondent No.4 himself was the Chairman of the Committee which submitted the report (Annexure R4/1). In these circumstances, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned termination order and order of blacklisting.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has sought time to file the reply but to assist this Court he has taken this Court to the report of the Committee (Annexure R4/1) and has pointed out that the IT expert Committee was constituted on 05.06.2021 and it had submitted the report within a very short time on 08.06.2021 by giving finding on many issues which does not seem to be possible. He has further submitted that the report of the IT Committee has been accepted by the respondent No.4 but the matter did not go to the Vice Chancellor of the University at any stage except at the stage of approval of the termination order. He

has also drawn the attention of this Court to clause 5.8 of the contract document and has pointed out that it is only the University which is empowered to sign the contract and has referred to clause 29 of the tender document which empowers the University to terminate the contract. Referring to clause 6 of the Service Levels Agreements it has also been pointed out that the termination can be by the respondent No.1/University and the same can be done by the University after issuance of show cause notice and following the procedure prescribed therein. He has submitted that this elaborate procedure for termination has been prescribed so that the examination process may not suffer.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has vehemently opposed the writ petition and has placed heavy reliance upon the report of IT experts dated 08.06.2021 as also the three-member Committee report (Annexure R4/1) and has submitted that serious irregularities were committed by the petitioner, therefore, the contract of the petitioner has been terminated. Referring to the impugned order, he has also submitted that the contract has been terminated and blacklisting has been done with the approval of the Vice Chancellor and placing reliance upon Section 14(4) of the Act of 2011, he has submitted that the Vice Chancellor in emergency has power to take all the necessary decision and referring to the second proviso of sub-section (4), he has submitted that the petitioner has the remedy of appeal against the decision of the Vice Chancellor. Referring to clause 29 of the Contract, he has submitted that the power exists with the University to terminate the contract and that the petitioner had never informed the respondent-University about the registration of FIR against him. He has also submitted that a threat was given to the respondent No.4 by the petitioner, which led to filing the complaint by the respondent No.4 to the Superintendent of Police

on 07.06.2021 (Annexure R4/2). He has referred to the mark- sheets enclosed with the reply and has submitted that there is incorrect mentioning of marks in those mark-sheets and that a PIL for the irregularities in the University is also pending, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Having regard to the fact that the very jurisdiction of the respondent No.4 to pass the impugned order of termination of the contract has been questioned and that the termination procedure as required by clause 6 has not been followed and no notice was issued before termination and also considering the fact that very jurisdiction of Examination Controller to issue show cause notice of blacklisting is in issue and the period of blacklisting has not been mentioned in the impugned order which prima facie indicates that principles of natural justice has been violated and the fact that the impugned order has not been passed by the Vice Chancellor and prima facie the order is not passed in exercise of power under Section 14(4) of the Act and that the issue relating to very jurisdiction of the respondent No.4 to pass the impugned order has been raised, we are of the opinion that a case for grant of interim relief is made out.

Hence, by way of interim relief, till the next date of hearing operation of order of blacklisting is stayed and respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order dated 05.07.2021.

Issue notice to respondents No.2 and 3 on payment of process fee within three working days.

Petitioner is also directed to serve Hamdast notice on respondents No.2 and 3 on payment of separate process fee within three working days.

Let the reply be filed by respondent No.1 within two weeks.

List on 16.08.2021.

C.c. as per rules.

                      (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)               (VIRENDER SINGH)
                            JUDGE                               JUDGE
DV

Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.07.30
15:58:00 +05'30'