WPMS/2759/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3584 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                            AND
               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE

                      11TH NOVEMBER, 2022
       WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 2759 OF 2022

Between:

Krishan Ballabh.
                                                              ...Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand and others.
                                                          ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner.         :   Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, the learned
                                        counsel.

Counsel for the respondent nos. 1   :   Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Standing
to 3.                                   Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.



JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

              The petitioner has preferred the present Writ

Petition to assail the order dated 07.02.2019 issued by

the Chief Medical Superintendent/ respondent no. 2,

whereby the blacklisting order passed against the

respondent no. 4 has been recalled.


2.            Firstly, we find that the present Writ Petition

is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch as it has been

preferred after nearly two and a half years after the

passing of the impugned order. Even on merits we are

not inclined to grant the reliefs sought.
 3.           The petitioner is a competitor of respondent

no. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

had challenged the award of the contract in favour of

respondent no. 4, on the ground that he had relied

upon a forged and fabricated experience certificate to

obtain the contract. The Writ Petition preferred by the

petitioner    was   allowed.       It   was   found   that   the

experience certificate provided by the respondent no. 4

was, indeed, not a correct experience certificate, and,

consequently, the contract awarded in favour of the

respondent no. 4 was cancelled; its security deposit

forfeited, and; blacklisting order was passed against

him on 27.12.2017.


4.           It appears that, after a few months of the

blacklisting, the respondent no. 4 raised a grievance

with regard to the blacklisting order being passed

without hearing him. The Writ Petition preferred by the

respondent no. 4 was disposed of and the respondent-

authorities were asked to reconsider the matter, and

take appropriate action. Thereafter, the respondent no.

4 represented to the respondent-authorities, and, on

the basis of the legal advice, the respondent-authorities

withdrew the blacklisting order passed against the
                               2
 respondent     no.   4    by   the   impugned    order   dated

07.02.2019. As a consequence of the furnishing of the

false experience certificate, the respondent no. 4,

therefore,     suffered    cancellation   of    the   contract;

forfeiture of the security deposit, and; blacklisting for

the period from 27.12.2017 to 07.02.2019 i.e. about 14

months.


5.           The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that that the petitioner was not heard

before recalling the order of blacklisting of respondent

no. 4.


6.           We do not find any merit in this submission.

It was a matter entirely between the respondent-

authorities and the respondent no. 4 as to whether, or

not, the blacklisting of respondent no. 4 should have

been continued, and, if so, on what terms and

conditions. The petitioner, being a competitor, had no

right to be heard in such proceedings. Merely because

blacklisting of the respondent no. 4 occurred on

account of the illegality pointed out by the petitioner, it

does not mean that the petitioner had a right to be

heard by the respondent-authorities, with regard to the

blacklisting of the respondent no. 4.
                                3
 7.        The further submission of Mr. Barthwal is that

the respondent-authorities have merely withdrawn the

blacklisting order on the basis of the legal opinion, and

they have not taken any further action against the

respondent no. 4.


8.        Once again, we do not find any merit in this

submission.     As aforesaid, it was for the respondent-

authorities     to   take   a   decision   in   the   matter.

Considering the fact that the contract was cancelled;

the security deposit of respondent no. 4 was forfeited,

and; the respondent no. 4 suffered blacklisting for

nearly 14 months, in our view, the respondent-

authorities were justified in taking the view that the

respondent no. 4 had been subjected to sufficient

penalty for its wrongdoing. It is not for the petitioner

to judge the extent of punishment or penalty that the

respondent no. 4 should have been subjected to, for its

wrongful act.


9.        We, therefore, do not find any merit in the

present Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




                                4
 10.       In sequel thereto, pending application, if any,

also stands disposed of.



                                 ________________
                                  VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.


                                      _____________
                                       R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 11th November, 2022 Rahul