Telangana High Court
M/S Prashant Poultry Private Limited vs State Of Telangna on 1 May, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.11034 of 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"... declaring the action of the respondents, particularly respondent No.2 in
issuing the proceedings bearing No.4879/SNP-3/2024, dated 28.03.2025, by
blacklisting the poultry firm of the petitioner i.e., M/s.Prashant Poultry Private
Limited with immediate effect as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law,
violative of principles of natural justice, without notice and set aside the same
and consequently direct respondents to receive and process the same as per
the tender uploaded on the website of the respondent department dated
30.03.2025, inviting online tenders for State Level Zonal Tender for
procurement and supply of Eggs (hen) as per the AGMARK specifications and
other processing/grading conditions as mentioned in the tender for a period of
one year (April 2025-March, 2026) to the beneficiaries under the flagship of
Arogya Lakshmi and Supplementary Nutrition Program for Zone-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
& 7, approve the tender subject to terms of tender conditions as per law ...."
2) Heard Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel,
representing Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has participated in State Level Zonal Tender for
Procurement and Supply of Eggs (Hen) along with other tenderers in the
month of November, 2022 and tender has been approved in favour of the
petitioner Company for a period of 2 years for Zone-6 (Charminar Zone).
PK, J
Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 entered into an agreement on
07.02.2023 with petitioner Company for supply of eggs, as per the terms
of the agreement, for a period of two years commencing from 01.03.2023
in the Districts of Medchal-Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy, Sangareddy and
Vikarabad in Zone-VI Charminar. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner
Company has been supplying the eggs as per the terms and conditions
of the agreement without any delay. Learned senior counsel further
submitted that inspite of the petitioner Company maintaining quality
and quantity, the respondents have started issuing show cause notices
to the petitioner Company from the beginning itself, with malafide
intention and for extraneous reasons, complaining that the eggs
supplied are delayed and delivered at late hours and not in working
hours and that the eggs are rotten and the eggs are being supplied in
the month end leading to THR distribution and the supply of quantity
was 89% instead of 100%, though the petitioner supplied as per the
terms and conditions of the agreement.
3.1) Learned senior counsel has further contended that on one hand
the respondents continued to issue notices and on the other they
received the supplies, till the end of expiry of contract by the end of
February, 2025. Further, in spite receiving the supply, bills are not
being paid and nearly five months payment is due from the Government.
PK, J
While so, during first week of April, 2025, the petitioner was issued with
the impugned proceedings dated 29.03.2025 referring to show cause
notices earlier issued to the petitioner and stating that the petitioner
failed to submit explanation to the said notices. Learned senior counsel
has vehemently contended that vide impugned proceedings, the
respondents have blacklisted the petitioner Company with immediate
effect and barred from participating in the future contracts, tenders,
procurement process and immediately on 30.03.2025 a fresh
notification calling for tenders for the year 2025-2026 has been issued,
in order to give contract to other tenderers malafidely and further
without any notice proposing to blacklist, the impugned proceedings
dated 28.03.2025 are issued by respondent No.2, arbitrarily and in
colourable exercise of power and contrary to the agreement. Further,
during the period of agreement dated 07.02.2023, despite issuance of
show cause notices, no action was taken for either termination or
imposition of penalty, as provided in paragraph V of the agreement.
3.2) Learned senior counsel has further contended that in the show
cause notices, it was alleged about default in supply, delay, less
quantity, smell, etc., but in none of the show cause notices, there was
any mention of threat of blacklisting not only to the petitioner but also
to other contractors in other zones and said show cause notices were
PK, J
issued only for statistical purpose. Learned senior counsel further
contended that though similar show cause notices were issued to seven
other approved contractors of notification 12.08.2024, but no action is
taken to blacklist any of them but the petitioner alone was blacklisted
inspite of receiving supplies from the petitioner till the end of the
contract and the same amounts to discrimination and favoritism and
therefore prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order. Reliance
has been placed on M/s.Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v.
State of West Bengal 1, Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar 2 and
Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi 3.
4) Per contra, the learned Advocate General has submitted that as
the petitioner was L1 bidder under the State-Level Zonal Tender floated
in November, 2022, he was awarded the contract in Zone-6 for supply of
eggs (hen) subject to compliance of tender terms. However, its bid for
Zone-7 was rejected due to non-fulfillment of eligibility conditions. The
petitioner, having voluntarily executed the agreement, dated
07.02.2023, is abide by the terms relating to supply, grading, quality
and delivery, including clause-V(7) thereof, which deals with Blacklisting
and clause-XI which deals with arbitration. Several complaints were
1 AIR 1975 SC 266
2 AIR 1989 SC 620
3 AIR 2014 SC 3371
PK, J
received against the petitioner from Zone-6 regarding delay in deliveries
and deficient quantity. Therefore, show cause notices were issued to the
petitioner citing the contractual breaches and intimating that such
continued negligent conduct would result in termination and
blacklisting, as per the terms of the agreement. But, the petitioner has
not responded to any notice. Clause-V(7) of the agreement dated
07.02.2023 empowers the Department to blacklist the defaulting
contractors. Despite of existence of such agreement condition, the
petitioner was reluctant in submitting its explanation/remedial plan to
the Department. Learned Advocate General has contended that the
petitioner does not qualify as per clause 2.12 of the new tender dated
30.03.2025 and corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, as it lacks a valid
AGMARK grading certificate from the Directorate of Marketing and
Inspection. The Department has acted only to protect the interest of the
beneficiaries, who are children aged between 7 months - 6 years,
pregnant and lactating mothers. Further, the blacklisting was
necessitated solely due to persistent non-performance and failure on the
part of the petitioner to respond to the repeated notices issued to it.
Further, the multiple opportunities given by the Department to the
petitioner to rectify the deficiencies and to submit a detailed
reply/defense were not utilized by the petitioner.
PK, J
4.1) Learned Advocate General has strenuously contended that in
three show cause notices dated 25.05.2024, 15.07.2024 and
04.09.2024, it was clearly stated that continued non-compliance and
negligence would consequently result in termination and blacklisting,
however, the same were suppressed by the petitioner before this Court.
A party who seeks equity must do equity and cannot be allowed to
mislead the Court by concealing material particulars. Such conduct
strikes at the very foundation of equitable relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed in limine on this ground alone. While specifically pointing out
of the supply failures on the part of the petitioner during the months of
November-2024, December-2024 and January-2025, it is contended
that such default has caused anguish to the beneficiaries as well as the
Department. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner has diverted
supplies from Anganwadi Centers to the open market whenever the cost
of eggs increased in the open market to make more profits, at the cost of
health of the beneficiaries. Petitioner has also not made bonafide effort
to compensate the shortfall in its subsequent consignments. Such
conduct not only amounts to breach of contractual obligations but also
undermines the core objectives of supplementary nutrition program and
Aarogya Lakshmi scheme.
PK, J
4.2) Insofar as discrimination alleged by the petitioner is concerned,
learned Advocate General has contended that other suppliers of other
Zones including M/s.Rajitha Poulty Farm and Feeds were also issued
show cause notices during their tenure for non-compliance or
rectification of deficiencies, to which, they have submitted replies and
taken adequate remedial measures, whereas, the petitioner has failed
even to respond to the notices issued to it and therefore the case of the
petitioner cannot be equated with other suppliers.
4.3) It is further contended that the contractual period with the
petitioner was ended by 28.02.2025 and the temporary extension
granted thereafter was not an endorsement of its performance, but a
necessary administrative measure compelled by the food supply
disruption and due to enforcement of Model Code of Conduct the fresh
tenders could not be floated. It is further asserted that the name of the
petitioner does not find place in the 'List of Poultry Farmers issued with
replica numbers for eggs for the past two years' dated 08.04.2025,
issued by the Department of Marketing and Inspection, Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. Thus, finally, it is
contended that the respondents are justified in passing the impugned
order blacklisting the petitioner Company as the same was preceded by
persistent defaults on the part of the petitioner and sufficient show
PK, J
cause notices by the respondents. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the
writ petition.
5) In reply, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
has contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are
vague and do not refer to specific lapses and therefore the same cannot
form basis for passing the impugned order. Further, the officials of the
petitioner Company have personally visited the authorities and the
officials have explained about the quality and quantity of the supply and
also requested the authorities to state as to which consignment contain
the low quality of eggs etc, to which the authorities have submitted no
information and therefore the petitioner Company was not in a position
to submit effective explanation as the petitioner has been supplying the
eggs as per the terms and conditions accepted from time to time.
Learned senior counsel has further contended that inspite of issuing
notices, the respondents received the supply till the expiry of contract
period i.e. by the end of February 2005 and also continued to receive the
supply even thereafter. In fact, in the show cause notices dated
25.05.2024, 15.07.2024, 25.07.2024, 04.09.2024 and 07.03.2025, only
the violations were pointed out and observed that if explanation is not
submitted, further action will be initiated as per the records and none of
the notices specifically stated about particular penalty/action which has
PK, J
to be taken as proposing to blacklist for a period. Therefore, the notices
issued to the petitioner are clearly contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services and Erusian
Equipments and Chemicals (referred supra) and also UMC
Technologies v. Food Corporation of India 4 wherein it was clearly
held that notice specifically proposing the penalty should be issued. It
is further contended that all the notices relate to the allegations of
performance of the contract and those notices were not acted upon and
the last notice being dated 29.01.2025 only speaks of the action to be
taken as per the Rules with reference to low deficit supply of eggs in
January, 2025. As such the continuation, caution presumption cannot
be urged by the respondents with reference to the show cause notice
unless it is specifically proposed preceding the show cause notice before
passing the impugned order dated 28.03.2025.
5.1) While denying the submission made by the learned Advocate
General that the petitioner had no locus standi to question or seek
permission to participate in the tender agreement dated 30.03.2025 or
do not have the requisite eligibility qualifications to participate in the
tender, the learned senior counsel has contended that the petitioner has
the requisite eligibility qualifications to participate in the tender. As
4 (2021) 2 SCC 551
PK, J
regards clause 2.12 is concerned, it is contended that as the petitioner
has not yet submitted its tender, the contention of the respondents that
the petitioner does not qualify under clause 2.12 is untenable and
misconceived.
5.2) Further, the show-cause notices only state that further action will
be initiated to keep the firm in blacklisting but does not specify the
principle of law on blacklisting. As regards submission of
reply/explanation to the show cause notices, it is submitted that the
officials of the petitioner's Company have clarified to the authorities and
they stated that the said notices were issued to all the contractors
mechanically and routinely in view of certain incidents reported in
newspaper and only to overcome the criticism against the Government.
It is further contended that the notices were issued without specifying
the nature of allegations with reference to a particular incident or
particular batch supplied, the quality or quantity supplied. Learned
senior counsel has strenuously contended that though similar notices
were issued other contractors, no action is taken against them and
action is taken only against the petitioner by passing the impugned
order dated 28.03.2025, served on the petitioner on 30.03.2025, only to
see that the petitioner shall not participate in the fresh tender notified
on 30.03.2025 that too without terminating the contract and even
PK, J
during the extended period after the expiry of the contract period.
Further, if the allegations leveled in the show cause notice are serious in
nature, the authorities ought to have resorted for immediate action as
per clause-V of the agreement dated 07.02.2023 imposing penalty/
termination during the contract period. Further, while denying the
allegations of diverting the supplies from Anganwadi Centers to open
market whenever the cost of eggs is increased in the open market, it is
contended none of the correspondence had a mention of the above
allegations and for the first time the said allegation was made before this
Court without any details/proofs. With reference to the alleged
shortfall/failure to replenish the deficit, it is alleged that they are with
reference to the existing contract and the same are nothing to do with
the issuance of proper show cause notice and following procedure in the
nature of punishment of blacklisting and the conduct of not submitting
the explanation do not absolve imposition of penalty by State without
following the procedure of law. In fact, after issuance of show cause
notices, the officials of the petitioner Company met the authorities and
explained that there are no deficiencies and the same is borne out by
the conduct of the respondents as no action has been initiated
thereafter.
PK, J
5.3) It is further contended that the impugned order is passed only to
exclude the petitioner from participating in the tender and to favour
other tenderers. Further, clause 2.12 will not apply at this stage. No
notice specifically proposing to blacklist was issued and the show cause
notices issued are only to rectify the alleged irregularities during the
subsistence of contract. Further, the petitioner possess the requisite
qualifications to participate in the fresh contract and the impugned
order dated 30.03.2025 is passed only to prejudice the petitioner.
Further, it is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that blacklisting has
a serious consequence on fundamental right to trade with the
Government and blacklisting cannot be for indefinite period and shall
depend on gravity. Hence, it is contended that imposition of
punishment of blacklisting without specifying the period is illegal and
arbitrary. Reliance has been placed on Kulja Industries Limited v.
Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited 5.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective
parties and gone through the material on record.
7) A perusal of the material on record reveals that after approval of
the tender in favour of the petitioner Company for supply of eggs (hen)
5 (2014) 14 SCC 731
PK, J
for a period of two years in respect of Zone-VI i.e. Charminar Zone, the
petitioner entered into an agreement with respondents 2 and 3 on
07.02.2023 and the agreement period commenced from 01.02.2023.
Further, though the petitioner received the show cause notices issued by
the authorities on 25.05.2024, 15.07.2024, 25.07.2024 and 04.09.2024,
wherein the respondents have proposed to initiate action against the
petitioner, admittedly, the petitioner has not responded to any of the
said show cause notices.
8) Before dealing with the contention of the petitioner, precisely, as
regards non-submission of its explanation, this Court deems it apt to
reproduce the relevant contents of the said show cause notices.
a) Show cause Notice dated 25.05.2024 mentions as under:
"...
Vide reference 5th cited, Adverse news published in Velugu News paper with
caption "Anganwadi Centre ki Kullina Gudlu supply" at "Yellamkonda village,
Nawabpet Mandal, ICDS Vikarabad project, Vikarabad District, dt:23.05.2024,
stating that eggs which were supplied to the beneficiaries were not good quality
and getting bad odur at Yellamkonda village, Nawabpet Mandal, ICDS
Vikarabad project which comes under Zone-6.
.....
Hence, the proprietor is directed to submit the explanation to the show
Cause notice within 3days on receipt of this notice. If failing with it will be
PK, J
presumed that there is nothing to say in your defence and further action will
be initiated to keep the firm in black list as per rules in force."
b) Similarly, Show Cause Notice dated 15.07.2024 mentions as
under:
" .... Vide reference 5th cited, Adverse news published in Sakshi Newspaper
with caption "Anganwadilo Kullina Gudlu" at "Udanraopally village, Doma
Mandal, ICDS Parigi project, Vikarabad District, dt:05.07.2024, stating that
eggs which were supplied to Anganwadi centres were rotten at Udanraopally
village, Doma Mandal, ICDS Parigi project, Vikarabad District which comes
under Zone-6.
......
Hence, the proprietor is directed to submit the explanation to the Show
Cause notice within 3days on receipt of t his notice. If failing with it will be
presumed that there is nothing to say in your defence and further action will
be initiated to keep the firm in black list as per rules in force."
c) Likewise, the show cause notice dated 25.07.2024 mentions the
following:
".. Vide reference 6th cited, the collector, Vikarabad District has visited
AWCs on 12.07.2024 and informed that no eggs stock is available in 382
AWCs of Vikarabad dist.
Further, it is to inform that, the eggs supplies to Vikarabad district in the
month of June, 2024 was 83% only and supplies in the month of July'2024
was 31% only till 12.07.2024 against the indent placed in CSTS app on
04.07.2024.
Further it is inform that, vide reference 5th cited this office has already
issued show cause notice to the firm on Adverse News published in Velugu
Newspaper with caption "Anganwadi Centre ki Kullina Gudlu supply" at
PK, J
"Yellamkonda village, Nawabet Mandal, ICDS Vikarabad project, Vikarabad
District, dt:23.05.2024 with instructions to submit the reply/explanation with
in 3days. But, whereas the explanation for said show cause notice is not yet
received from the concerned firm.
In this connection, it reveals that the lapses and allegations mentioned in
the show cause notice are true and you are accepted the allegations made on
your firm and the explanation is still not furnished by you as there is nothing
to say in your defence.
Hence, in view of the above circumstances you are instructed to show cause
why the contract should not be terminated duly forfeiting the bank guarantee
for the above lapses for violating terms and conditions as per clause 17&19
laid in the egg tender document and SOP guidelines supplying rotten eggs and
delay in supplies to the AWCs.
Hence, the proprietor is directed to submit the explanation to the Show
Cause notice within 3days on receipt of this notice, failing which it will be
presumed that there is nothing to say in your defence and further action will
be initiated as per the record materials, evidences and records available with
the office."
d) Similarly, the show cause notice dated 04.09.2024 contains the
following:
"... In this connection, to the above recent adverse issues reported
regarding the supply of eggs to the Anganwadi Centers (AWCs) under the ICDS
Project Maheshwaram. The enquiry report dated 03.09.2024 highlights
severed serious concerns about the quality and condition of the eggs provided
by Prashanth Poultry Pvt. Ltd.
Observations on enquiry:
1. Quality and Weight Discrepancies: The eggs received on 28.08.2024
were found to be of inferior quality, with discrepancies in weight and spoilage
issues reported.
PK, J
2. Complaints and Actions Taken: Complaint was lodged, leading to the
replacement of 205 eggs on 03.09.2024. Further dissatisfaction from the ward
member and beneficiaries has been noted.
Violation of Agreement and Guidelines:
As per the agreement terms and conditions specified in Class 3 and 5.1 of
the tender document, any deviations in the process, handling, and storage
activities render the bidder liable for penalization. The Standard Operative
Procedures (SOP) clearly mandate that eggs supplied must conform to
AGMARK specifications and meet required quality standards.
The following points have been violated as per the terms of the agreement
and SOP guidelines:
(i) Deviation from Agreement Terms: The supply of spoiled eggs
constitutes a breach of the agreement.
(ii) Violation of SOP Guidelines: The supplied eggs failed to meet the
AGMARK specifications, reflecting non-compliance with the quality
standards set forth.
(iii) Failure to submit explanation: Through the Ref 5th cited, the
Poultry firm has not submitted explanation for the 2 Show Cause
notices issued on adverse News & District collector, Vikarabad Visit
to AWCs. This shows negligence towards the addressing the issue.
In the light of these circumstances, it is hereby directed to provide a written
explanation, addressing the following:
1) Explanation for Deviations: Provide a detailed explanation
for the supply of inferior quality eggs not as per the terms
and conditions of tender.
2) Lab Reports: The lab reports of the eggs for this particular
batch should be provided by the Laboratory submitted as per
the bid documents.
PK, J
3) A Status certificate from Animal Husbandry Dept. on the
production capacity on AGMARK Graded eggs weighing 45-52
gms of the Poultry Firm.
Failure to submit a satisfactory explanation within the stipulated time of three
(3) Days from the date of this notice may result in the following actions:
Contract Termination: Consideration for termination of the contract.
Forfeiture of Bank Guarantee: Action for forfeiting the bank guarantee as
per Clause 17 and 19 of the agreement.
Blacklisting: Blacklisting of the firm as per the rules in force."
9) In all the above referred show cause notices, while pointing out
the lapses on the part of the petitioner, the respondents have specifically
stated to submit its explanation within a stipulated time. In spite of
such specific directions, the petitioner failed to submit its explanation to
any of the above referred show cause notices. Though the learned
senior counsel has contended that the officials of the petitioner
Company have visited the authorities and asked them to provide details
as to which consignment was of inferior quality, for which, the
authorities have informed that the notices were issued for statistical
purpose and therefore the petitioner had not submitted its explanation,
but, the said contention cannot be countenanced as it is common
prudence that when a series of show cause notices are issued, the same
PK, J
shall not be remained unanswered. Hence, an adverse inference has to
be drawn against the petitioner for not submitting its explanation.
10) Further, Para-V of the Agreement dated 07.02.2023 entered
between the parties, speaks of Penalties and clause (7) thereof reads as
under:
"It is to be ensured that the stocks are supplied as per the indented
quantity. If the ordered quantity is not supplied in full, within the stipulated
time, the EMD & Security Deposit may be forfeited besides blacklisting.
Further for any defaults in supplies either wholly or partially on account of
quality aspect (or) quantity aspect the delay in supply, apart from forfeiture of
security deposit, further action may also be initiated as per terms and
conditions mentioned in the tender document and Acts/rules in vogue.
(emphasis added)
11) Similarly, in AIR INDIA LTD. v. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LTD. 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the scope
of interference as enunciated in several earlier decisions thus:
"7. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by
a pubic body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In
arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount
are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to
arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and
that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before
finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not
always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any
relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a
2000 (2) SCC 617
PK, J
relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a
relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the
highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities
and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and
procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily.
Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court
can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found
vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The
State, its Corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the
public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is
found in the decision-making process the Court must exercise its
discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should
exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on
the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the
larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its
intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion
that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court
should intervene."
(Emphasis added)
12) In Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India 7, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
"43... Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the Government
from arbitrarily choosing a contractor at its will and pleasure. It
has to act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding
contract. At the same time, no person can claim a fundamental
right to carry on business with the Government. All that he can
claim is that in competing for the contract, he should not be
unfairly treated and discriminated, to the detriment of public
interest."
7 (2005) 1 SCC 679
PK, J
13) From the above, it is clear that the Courts shall not interfere in
the decision-making process unless the same is found to be vitiated by
unreasonableness, mala fides and arbitrariness.
14) Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner itself failed to
submit its explanation to any of the notices, referred supra, wherein it
was specified that in case of failure to submit its explanation, the
respondents will initiate further action. Further, the show-cause notice
dated 04.09.2024 clearly specifies that Failure to submit a satisfactory
explanation within the stipulated time of three (3) days from the date of
the notice may result in termination/forfeiture/blacklisting. Therefore,
the action of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner's Company
cannot be interfered with. Further, the judgments relied by the learned
senior counsel in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd.,
Raghunath Thakur, Gorkha Security Services and UMC
Technologies (referred supra) are not applicable to the case on hand
and are distinguishable, as the petitioner has not submitted its
explanation to the show cause notices issued to it by the respondent
authorities.
15) Insofar as the contention of the petitioner as regards black listing
the petitioner's Company permanently is concerned, it is apt to refer to
the judgment in State of Odisha v. Panda Infra Projects (India)
PK, J
Private Limited 8, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
"29. In the instant case, it might be true that the offence was the first
offence committed by the contractor. However, considering the seriousness of
the matter that due to the omission and commission on the part of the
contractor a serious incident had occurred as there was a collapse of a ten
metre slab while constructing a flyover in which one person died and eleven
others injured, as such the contractor does not deserve any leniency.
However, to debar him permanently can be said to be too harsh a punishment.
But considering the subsequent OM dated 26-11-2021 reproduced
hereinabove (to which as such we do not agree as observed hereinabove), we
are of the opinion that if the blacklisting is restricted to five years, it may be in
the fitness of things."
16) in the instant case, the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 is
passed blacklisting the petitioner's Company for the lapses of deficit
supply, delay in supply, late hours supply, supply not in working hours,
rotten and small eggs (less than 45 grams), etc. however, without
specifying the period of blacklisting, which in the considered view of this
Court is too harsh for the alleged lapses and therefore needs to be
interfered with.
17) For the aforementioned reasons, while confirming the action of the
respondents in blacklisting the petitioner's Company, the impugned
order dated 28.03.2025 is set aside to the extent of not indicating the
period of blacklisting and the matter is remanded to the authorities for
taking appropriate decision on the period for which the petitioner's
Company is to be blacklisted duly considering the law laid down by the
8 (2022) 4 SCC 393
PK, J
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panda Infra Projects (India) Private
Limited (referred supra) as well as the gravity of lapses on the part of
the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,
shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 01.05.2025.
sur
Issue C.C. by 03.05.2025
