Uttarakhand High Court
Puran Chandra Belwal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 5 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 91 OF 2023
5TH SEPTEMBER, 2023
Puran Chandra Belwal ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari,
learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel for the State
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to assail the order dated 18.04.2023, issued by
respondent No. 2.
2) The said order reads as follows :
"dk;kZy; izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh] fiFkkSjkx<+ ou izHkkx] fiFkkSjkx<+A
i=kad @10&1 fnukad] fiFkkSjkx<+] 18 vizSy] 2023A
lsok esa]
ou {ks=kf/kdkjh]
2
csjhukxA
fo"k;%& csjhukx jsat varxZr lqdY;kM+h cSaM ds lehi ls 41 fVu yhlk voS/k :Ik ls
cjken gksus ds laca/k esaA
lanHkZ%& vkidk i=kad 630@10&1 fnukad 07-04-2023A
mijksDr fo"k;d i= ds Øe esa vkidh jsat ls izkIr lwpuk vuqlkj fn0 04-04-2023 dks
csjhukx jast varxZr lqdY;kM+h cSaM ds lehi 41 fVuksa esa voS/k yhlk cjken gqvk gS] vkidh tkWp
vk[;k vuqlkj dk;kZns'k tkjh fd;s tkus ls iwoZ gh yhlk esV Jh iwju pUnz csyoky iq= pUnz
cYyHk csyoky] xzke o iks0&xqfu;kys[k] rg0 /kkjh] ftyk&uSuhrky }kjk ou iapk;r HkV~Vhxkao
ls 41 yhlk Hkjs fVu voS/k :Ik ls fudkys x;s gSa ftlds fo:) jsat }kjk dsl la0
01@csjh0@o"kZ 2023&24 btjk; fd;k x;k gSA
vr% mDr iw.kZ ?kVukØe esa vkidh tkWp o laLrqfr ,oa mi izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh csjhukx
dh laLrqfr ds Øe esa yhlk esV Jh iwju pUnz csyoky iq= pUnz cYyHk csyoky] xzke o
iks0&xqfu;kys[k] rg0 /kkjh] ftyk&uSuhrky }kjk yhlk Qly o"kZ 2023 gsrq Mkys x;s leLr
VS.Mjksa dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa bUgsa dkyh lwph esa Mkyk tkrk gSA
ou iapk;rsa ftu ds fo:) VS.Mj fujLr fd;s x;s gS dh lwpuk fuEuor~ gS%&
jsat%&csjhukx
1- o0ia0 I;kjk
2- o0ia0 HkV~Vhxkao
3- o0ia0 ukSrl
4- o0ia0 jkbZxML;kjh
¼thou eksgu nxkM+s½
izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh]
fiFkkSjkx<+ ou izHkkx] fiFkkSjkx<+A
la[;k 6180@10&1 fnukafdr
izfrfyfi %&
1- ou laj{kd] mRrjh dqekÅW o`Rr] mRrjk[k.M] vYeksM+k dks lwpukFkZ iszf"krA
2- mi izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh csjhukx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA
3- ou {ks=kf/kdkjh] csjhukx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA
4- iwju pUnz csyoky iq= pUnz cYyHk csyoky] xzke o iks0&xqfu;kys[k] rg0 /kkjh]
ftyk&uSuhrky dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA
5- ljiap o0ia0 I;kjk] HkV~Vhxkao] ukSrl] jkbZxML;kjh dks }kjk ou {ks=kf/kdkjh
csjhukx lwpukFkZ izsf"krA
¼thou eksgu nxkM+s½
izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh]
fiFkkSjkx<+ ou izHkkx] fiFkkSjkx<+A"
3) The petitioner is a contractor engaged in
extracting resin from Van Panchayat forest. The petitioner
3
participated in the tender invited by respondent No. 2 on
23.01.2023.
4) The petitioner states that on 24.01.2023, the
petitioner emerged as the successful bidder in respect of
four Van Panchayats, out of which the petitioner was
already working in the previous years as the existing
contractor in two Van Panchayats.
5) The case of the respondents is that the
petitioner was found to be stealing resin / leesa from the
Van Panchayats, even though the contract had yet not
been awarded to him. Consequently, the respondent
authorities passed the impugned order, not only cancelling
the tender process, but also blacklisting the petitioner, on
account of the alleged theft of resin / leesa committed by
him.
6) So far as the cancellation of the petitioner's bid
is concerned, the petitioner has remedy under clause 43 of
the tender conditions, which reads as follows :
"43. dwi esa yhlk dk;Z ls lacf/kr fdlh Hkh izdkj ds fookn gksus dh LFkfr esa ou laj{kd]
mRrjh dqekÅW o`Rr] mRrjk[k.M] vYeksM+k dk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA"
7) So far as the petitioner's blacklisting is
concerned, admittedly, the same has not been preceeded
by any show cause notice to the petitioner. The
4
blacklisting of the petitioner, as the impugned order
shows, is for an indefinite period. In our view, the
blacklisting of the petitioner without compliance of the
principles of natural justice could not have been resorted
to, and the blacklisting, in any event, cannot be for an
indefinite period.
8) We, therefore, quash the second part of the
impugned order dated 18.04.2023, and permit the
respondents to first issue a show cause notice to the
petitioner, proposing the petitioner's blacklisting for
disclosed reasons. After calling for the petitioner's reply,
and considering the same, in case the respondents decide
to blacklist the petitioner, the same should be resorted to
for a reasonable period. The earnest money deposited by
the petitioner may be refunded to him, subject to the
terms and conditions of the contract.
9) Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 05th SEPTEMBER, 2023
Negi
