Quashed

Chintamani Projects Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Dept. of Public Works and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2023WP/1541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the order of blacklisting a petitioner against the State of Maharashtra as it was passed without issuing a show cause notice in violation of natural justice. The Court declined to decide on the legality of the bid rejection.

What did the court decide?

The order of blacklisting the petitioner under Circular dated 6/9/2022 was quashed and set aside.

Chintamani Projects Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Diksha Rane 59. WP 1541-2023.doc

¶2

DIKSHA DINESH RANE

¶3

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date: 2023.03.21 18:05:41 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1541 OF 2023

¶6

Chintamani Projects Ltd. ..Petitioner VS. The State of Maharashtra thr. Secretary, Dept. of Public Works & ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Adv. Pravin Desai for the petitioner. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the respondents-State.

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶9

DATE: MARCH 20, 2023

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1. The petitioner challenges (i) rejection of its technical bid and (ii) black listing.

¶12

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s bid was wrongfully rejected. Earnest money deposit was also made. The petitioner was called upon to submit such documents within 8 days. The petitioner had submitted all the documents called for. However, technical bid was rejected without appropriate reason. The order of blacklisting the

¶14

1/3

¶15

Diksha Rane 59. WP 1541-2023.doc

¶16

petitioner is also illegal and that too without issuing notice to it. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is bad in law.

¶17

4. Learned AGP submits that the work order has already been issued, but the work is not completed. It is in progress. Learned AGP submits that the additional performance security was not submitted by the petitioner as was required under the tender condition. As per the term of the tender condition, the petitioner was blacklisted.

¶18

5. We have considered the submissions. As far as challenge to the disqualification of the petitioner is concerned i.e. rejection of the technical bid, the same may not be relevant to consider here as according to the respondents, the work order was issued and the work is in progress. If the petitioner is wrongfully deprived of his right or any loss is caused to the petitioner on account of wrongfully rejection of bid, it is for the petitioner to seek damages before appropriate forum.

¶19

6. As far as blacklisting of the petitioner under Circular dated 6/9/2022 is concerned, the same admittedly is without notice to the petitioner. Blacklisting of the petitioner

¶20

2/3

¶21

Diksha Rane 59. WP 1541-2023.doc

¶22

entails civil consequences. It is cardinal and fundamental principle of jurisprudence that when any adverse action is taken, the principles of natural justice have to be adhered to and followed.

¶23

7. As the order of blacklisting of the petitioner is without show cause notice, the same is quashed and set aside.

¶24

8. In case, the respondents want to take any action for the petitioner’s blacklisting, the respondent can do so only after giving notice to the petitioner.

¶25

9. It is also made clear that we have not made any observations on the illegality and cancellation of the technical bid.

¶26

10. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

11. No costs.

¶28

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶29

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

3/3

Chintamani Projects Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Dept. of Public Works and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintamani Projects Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Dept. of Public Works and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anant Laxman Murudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Kamlesh Raghunath Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Minstry of Finance and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamagar Union Vs the Chairman the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Ors.

Ashok Shyamrao Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yashwant Ganpat Amrute Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Prasad Rajaram Bhusal Vs the Commissioner of Police , Nashik and Anr.