Allowed

Mohan Lal Contractor v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2008CW/174/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order blacklisting the petitioner firm, ruling that only the State Government had the authority to pass such an order under the relevant Rules. Additionally, the Court directed the Municipal Board to pay the outstanding dues within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order blacklisting the petitioner was set aside; the Municipal Board was directed to remit the entire due amount within two months.

Mohan Lal Contractor Vs State and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.174/2008

¶3

Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶4

DATE OF ORDER :: 02-04-2008

¶5

HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J.

¶6

Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi, for the respondent.

¶7

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure-8) whereby the petitioner is black listed and it is prayed that the due amount should ordered to be paid to the petitioner for the work already performed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned Annexure-8 has been passed, black listing the petitioner firm by the Executive Officer of Municipal Board, PeeliBanga, though the said officer has no authority to pass such an order. Inasmuch as as per the provision of Rajasthan Municipalities (Purchase of Material and contracts) Rules, 1974(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1974'), it is only the State Government which can pass an order black listing a firm not to undertake any work with the Municipal Board.

¶9

Referring to the aforesaid provision, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶10

¶11

is that the order impugned has been passed by the incompetent authority thus be set aside.

¶12

The further prayer is regarding payment of due amount as it is admitted by the respondents that due to non-availability of the fund, same has not been paid. Thus a direction is sought on that issue also.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the State Government is competent to pass the order of black listing then while quashing the order (Annexure-8) in that regard, liberty be given to the State Government to pass appropriate order, if so desired. So far as payment of petitioner is concerned, same would be made by the Municipal Board in near future at the first occasion when necessary funds would be available.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions and find that so far as the issuance of order Annexure-8 passed by the Executive Officer black listing the petitioner is concerned, same is not in conformity to the Rules of 1974 as authority to black list any firm lies with the State Government. Hence, the order Annexure-8 is set aside only to the extent of black listing the petitioner firm, as other part of the adverse order is not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

So far as non payment of due amount to the petitioner is concerned, as the counsel for the respondent has also agreed for giving the due amount by the Municipal Board at the earliest occasion, it is directed that the Municipal Board should remit the entire due amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that quashing of Annexure-8 in regard to black listing would not however preclude the State Government to pass an order in accordance with the Rules of 1974, if so desired.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.

¶17

Praveen

Mohan Lal Contractor v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Contractor v. State 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

Nar Singh Vs State and Anr.

Gram Panchayt, Potla Vs Prahlad Kumar Khatik and Ors.

Manager, Atlanta Infr. Ltd., Udaipur Vs Judge, Labour Court Udaipur and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs U.O.I.and Ors.

Vaini Ram Vs State and Ors.

Hakim Khan and Anr. Vs State and Ors.