Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1364/2021 on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 22nd DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1364 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Sugandhim Food & Catering Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
(Mr. Pranesh and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates)
AND:
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
.....Respondent
(Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties
through video conferencing.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the Letter
No.MM/IITR/Black-List/2021/04 dated
05.04.2021 of Black Listing the petitioner
for a period of 5 years from 05.04.2021 to
04.04.2026 with effect from 05.04.2021
(Annexure No.16) to this writ petition) in
favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent.
(ii) Issue writ of mandamus, order and
direction or any other appropriate writ
directing the respondent to release the
Bank Guarantee No.133016IGPER0001
dated 15.09.2018 of the amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- [rupees fifteen lakhs only]
(Annexure No.5 to this writ petition) in
favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent.
(iii) Issue writ of mandamus, order or
direction or any other appropriate writ
directing the respondent to pay the
amount of Rs.9,43,132/- [Rupees Nine
Lakhs, Forty-Three Thousand, One
Hundred and Thirty-Two Only] to the
petitioner as claimed in the Letter dated
29.06.2020 (Annexure No.11) of the
petitioner as increased contribution of
salary on establishment charges in parity
with M/s A-Diet Express Hospitality
Services Ltd.
(iv) Issue writ of mandamus, order or
direction or any other appropriate writ
directing the respondent to pay the
petitioner the amount illegally and
whimsically deducted by the respondent in
the name of the payment to the vendors
as per Annexure No.7 to this writ petition
and Annexure No.14 to this writ petition.
3. Petitioner was given a contract for
providing catering services in the hostels of IIT,
Roorkee for the financial year 2018-19, which was
subsequently extended for 2019-20. One of the
conditions of contract was that in case Contractor
wants to terminate the contract, he/she will have to
give two months' prior notice. According to the
petitioner, he invoked the said condition and
terminated the contract by giving two months'
notice on 30.10.2019. The Competent Authority,
vide letter dated 26.11.2019, informed the
petitioner that his contract shall stand terminated
w.e.f. 30.11.2019.
4. Petitioner's counsel has referred to a
document, enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ
petition, wherein his performance and quality of
food has been certified as good. Petitioner is
aggrieved by the order of blacklisting passed
against him on 05.04.2021. Although, petitioner
has sought other reliefs also, however, learned
counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer qua
prayer no.1 only and he submits that he is not
pressing other prayers in this writ petition and he
may be granted liberty to seek those reliefs before
an appropriate forum.
5. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that in view of arbitration
clause in the contract, other reliefs cannot be
granted in this writ petition. Petitioner's counsel
then submits that petitioner had invoked arbitration
clause and had requested for appointment of
Arbitrator by making an application dated
14.07.2020. If, that is so, it is for the Competent
Authority to pass appropriate order on the said
application.
6. Insofar as prayer no.1 is concerned, it is
the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing
was given to petitioner before passing the order of
blacklisting. Another ground of challenge in the writ
petition is that the order of blacklisting does not
disclose any reason, or in other words it is a non
speaking order.
7. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, had sought time to
get necessary instructions in the matter. Today, on
instructions, Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel
concedes that petitioner was not given opportunity
of hearing before passing the order of blacklisting.
He, therefore, submits that the blacklisting order
may be set-aside on this ground alone, leaving it
open to the Competent Authority to pass order
afresh after hearing the petitioner.
8. In view of the concession given by Mr.
Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent,
writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order of
blacklisting is quashed. However, the Competent
Authority in I.I.T., Roorkee shall be at liberty to
pass appropriate order afresh, but only after
providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Rajni
