SUMAT PRASHAD AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the legality and validity of the order of the respondent; blacklisting/ banning the petitioners from having any business dealings with the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner No.1 is a registered partnership firm of which petitioner No.;2 is a partner. The petitioner No.1 was awarded a contract by the respondents for the work styled as "Earth Work in embankment and cutting in zone No.XX between Tughlakabad and Ghaziabad from 3000 to 6850 in connection with Goods avoiding lines," within the operational jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer (Const.), Northern Railway. In pursuance of the aforesaid contract awarded in favour of the petitioner No.1 an agreement was also executed in between the petitioners and the Chief Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway on behalf of the President of India. During the continuation of the execution of the work some disputes appeared to have arisen in between the parties to the contract and some correspondence in that respect appear to have been exchanged between the parties. Subsequently, the petitioners were directed to stop the execution of the work between chainages 3300 to 4400. The respondents decided to re-check the initial levels of the original ground between chainages 3300 to 4400 whereas the stand of the petitioners was that as more than 15% of the earthwork had already been executed by them such a re- checking would serve no useful purpose. It is alleged in the writ petition that the respondents ultimately agreed to the stand taken by the petitioners and the respondents vide their letter dated 11/ 12.11.65 again requested the petitioners to execute the balance work at new rates, in pursuance of which the work was again started on 25.11.1965 and completed on 21.3.1966. 'It is alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition that they were not being awarded any further contracts by the respondents nor any reason for the same was intimated to the petitioners. Accordingly, enquiries were made by the petitioners on the basis of which it came to their knowledge that the Railway Board had issued a circular on or about 11.3.1968 to all the General Managers, Divisional Superintendents, various offices and Divisions of the Indian Railways and its projects blacklisting the petitioners for an indefinite period and the business dealings of the petitioners had been banned on all Indian Railways, Central Public Works Departments and the State Public Works Departments.

(3.) The respondents in their counter affidavit admitted that the Railway Board had issued certain secret information relating to the petitioners to the respondents and that the contents of the said letters were secret and were not required to be disclosed to the petitioners. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that issue of such circular/instructions from the Railway Board to the Zonal Railways about dealing with contractors is not uncommon and a number of secret letters are being issued off and on. The aforesaid secret instructions issued by the respondents had neither been annexed along with the counter affidavit nor was it placed before me by the respondents.