In a Writ Appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Single Judge's order refusing to set aside the termination of a transport contract. The Court held that evidence of collusion was insufficient and clarified that a contract suspension did not equate to blacklisting.
Writ Appeal dismissed. Contract suspension did not amount to blacklisting.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A. No.192 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chief Installation Manager,
Chennai terminal,
98/99, Elaiya Mudali Street,
Post Box No.1170,
Washermanpet Post,
Chennai - 600 021. ... 1st Appellant
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager,
South Zone, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
8, Gandhi Irwin Road,
PB No.3045,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ... 2nd Appellant
Versus
Geetha Transport,
Rep.by its Proprietor,
N.Vedapuri. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 21.11.2013 made in W.P. No.8280 of 2012.
2
For Appellants : Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s.King and Patridge. For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathiamurthy
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J.]
This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 21.11.2013 made in W.P. No.8280 of 2012.
(i) The respondent herein was working as a Contractor under the appellant corporation to transport their petroleum products to various destinations through the respondent's vehicle. An agreement dated 20.11.2007, has been entered into between the respondent and the appellant Corporation. The respondent is having 7 Tanker Lorries to perform the work of the appellant Corporation. The respondent has also suffered loss due to the fire accident in which one of his tankers was involved. Anyhow, the respondent has been managing because of the fact that the contracts are in existence. While so, the appellant Corporation has terminated the contract dated 15.05.2010 stating that in the Tollgate, excess amount has been paid and the same was transferred to the respondent's account. Further, the appellant Corporation has informed that there are some financial irregularities in his toll tax bills reimbursed in Chennai Terminal. In this regard, the
3
respondent has sent a letter dated 01.06.2010 requesting the appellant Corporation to furnish the details regarding the alleged irregularities.
(ii) On 02.07.2010, the appellants Corporation issued a Show Cause Notice stating that the respondent has inflated some bills by colluding with their Clerk one Asokan and hence, they have paid a sum of Rs.27,090/- in excess. The respondent/petitioner has sent his explanation in his reply dated
10.07.2010.
(iii) According to the respondent, whenever their tankers carrying the load of the respondent crosses various toll gates, toll charges have to be paid. The receipts issued by toll gate authorities at every toll gate will be retained by the tankers and at the end of every trip, the same will be submitted to the appellants Corporation in original and after verification with the department only, the amount will be credited into the respondent's bank account periodically.
(iv) According to the respondent/petitioner, since he has no control over the officers of the appellants Corporation, there is no question of receiving excess amount in their account and he cannot be penalized for the same. Further, for the month of July 2009 to March 2010, the appellants had issued Show Cause Notice in the month of July 2010 and the total amount of
4
bill is enclosed separately in words and figures for the appellants, to verify and approve the same. Firstly, the toll bills are verified with the vouchers pasted thereon and the amounts are also scruitnised and sent for approval to M/s.Nimmy Thomas, Accounts Officer and after her approval, it will be sent for further approval to Mr.Thirunatha Rao and the final approval authority for the said bills is the Terminal Manager of the Company. Hence, the impugned order dated 29.12.2011, terminating the contract is wholly without jurisdiction.
alteration could not have done by the respondent, while presenting the bills, which has not been established and the responsibilities will not be fixed upon the respondent. It is also mentioned that when the appellants admit that their Clerk Asokan has given evidence, he used to get some percentage of amount for claiming the excess bill amount, hence, the said Asokan is the responsible person for all the irregularities alleged by the appellants Corporation.
5
amount, he will get 80% of share from the respondent / petitioner.
6
15.05.2010. The respondent / transport agency had stated that they never resubmitted the bills already claimed by them. Further, he has stated that the respondent had never colluded with one Asokan, Clerk, working in appellants Corporation. The statement given by one Asokan, Clerk in the appellants corporation is false allegation and it is only to escape himself from further action at their end. After considering all the circumstantial evidences and the available records, the learned single judge has rightly set aisde the impugned order dated 29.12.2011. Hence, the lerned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
other materials filed with the typed set of papers. According to the appellants / Corporation the respondent with the connivance of one Asokan Clerk of their Corporation, who himself has admitted in his evidence that for claiming excess amount, he will get 80 to 85% shares from the transporters. But, he has not explained from whom he has collected the excess amount neither in in his chief examination nor in his cross examination. It is not clear that from whom the respondent has collected the excess amount or appellant Clerk has done this mischief activities. No enquiry has been conduced against the staff
7
of the appellants / Corporation and on his evidence only, the appelllants have arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is responsible for the alleged loss caused to the appellants Corporation. There is no evidence available to show that when the bills were presented by the respondent and no exact details are available to show how much amount has been claimed by the respondent, except the statement given by one Asokan.
found that the appellants Corporation have not clearly proved their case, except the evidence of Asokan and it is clear that some bills have been inflated and received a sum of Rs.27,090/- in excess.
8
set aside the punishment at this point of time.
to blacklisting the respondent as a contractor for the future contracts.
[K.K.S.J.,] [P.V.J.,]
27.10.2017
Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking
vsi2
9
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
AND P.VELMURUGAN, J.
vsi2
W.A. No.192 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
27.10.2017
10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge was correct in setting aside the termination of the transport contract due to lack of evidence proving collusion.
Whether the contract suspension amounted to blacklisting of the respondent for future bids.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Geetha Transport
K.K.SASIDHARAN
P.VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
