Dismissed

Ranjan Kumar v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation Ranchi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2015WPC/3901/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order cancelling the petitioner's registration and blacklisting them by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The High Court held that a show-cause notice was unnecessary as a prior notice regarding work quality had been issued.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the order of blacklisting was justified by prior notice.

Ranjan Kumar Vs Ranchi Municipal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 3901 of 2013

¶3

Ranjan Kumar, S/o- Sri Ramjit Singh, 2/K-43, Bariatu Housing Colony, Ranchi Versus

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi

¶6

Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi.

¶7

Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi

¶8

Municipal Corporation, Ranchi

¶9

Executive Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi … ... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. L.C.N. Sahadeo, G.P. IV

¶12

¶13

02/06.01.2015 Seeking quashing of order contained in letter dated 30.05.2013 whereunder registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and he has been black listed, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

Pursuant to NIT dated 18.12.2012, the petitioner participated in the tender for work under Group No. 64 relating to work of improvement of road from Kanke Road Military Camp Road Junction to Ratu Road Durga Mandir. The petitioner was declared successful and an Agreement bearing no. 241/ 2012-13 was executed and on 02.03.2013 work order was issued in favour of the petitioner. Vide communication dated 22.05.2013, the petitioner was directed to carry out work in terms of the agreement and vide letter dated 30.05.2013, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled and it was put under “Black List”.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without issuing a show-cause notice and without

¶16

¶17

providing sufficient opportunity to defend himself, by letter dated 30.05.2013, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and it has been put under category “Black List” which is not justified. Relying on a decision in “Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.” reported in 2014 (4) JBCJ 124 (SC) , the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since order dated 30.05.2013 has ensued civil as well as evil consequences to the petitioner, a show-cause notice was required to be given to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.06.2013 however, the respondent- Municipal Corporation has not taken any decision on the said representation.

¶18

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶19

A perusal of agreement dated 02.03.2013 discloses that it contains a specific clause that the materials utilised for execution of work must be of approved quality and if necessary, quality check may be done for ascertaining the quality of the work. A notice dated 22.05.2013 was issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that during spot verification it has been detected that the work executed by the petitioner is not as per the estimate which has affected the quality of work. In his representation dated 14.06.2013, the petitioner has disputed the report received from the Quality Control Laboratory stating that the sample collected in the night may be of the portion in which

¶20

¶21

rectification was to be done. It further appears that in his representation the petitioner has admitted that due to negligence of the labourers, the work may not have been of approved quality.

¶22

In the above facts, I am of the opinion that proper notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.05.2013 and there was no necessity of issuing a separate notice before an order of black listing was passed. The registration of the petitioner has been put under the category “Black List” only in so far as, it concerns the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been black listed for other Government Department or Corporation also. Since the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation, order of black listing cannot be said to have brought further evil consequences to the petitioner. In view of the facts disclosed in the writ petition, the decision in “Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.”, relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, does not lend assistance to the case of the petitioner. 7. I find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

Tanuj/-

Ranjan Kumar v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation Ranchi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kumar v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation Ranchi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawnit Kumar Dwivedi Vs District Administration

Parwati Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Zaidul Haque Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amrita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Others

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs The Dy Chairman Ranchi Regional Development Authority And Ors.

Ms a K Travels through Its Proprietor Sri Arbind Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Dept