SURJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is in the business of transport, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, order or direction against the respondents for quashing the order dated 24 October 1991 passed by the fourth respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Provisions & Lines, Delhi) and the order dated 29 January 1992 passed by the third respondent (The Commissioner of Police, New Delhi). Petitioner also prayed that his contract for supply of commercial matadors etc. to the respondents be restored for remaining period under the contract. As far as this second prayer is concerned, the period under the contract has already expired.

(2.) The third respondent had issued a tender inviting offers for supply of commercial Matadors for use in the police force. The tender of the petitioner was accepted and a contract entered into on 8 March 1991 for a period of one year. Under the contract the petitioner was to supply commercial Matadors to the police department and had deposited Rs.14,000.00 as security for the due performance of the contract.

(3.) The respondents at a later date, considering that the terms of the contract had been violated, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter by order dated 24 October 1991 of the fourth respondent cancelled the contract, forfeited the security deposit, and also black-listed the petitioner firm in its dealings with the Delhi Police. The petitioner represented and he was informed by the third respondent by letter dated 29 January 1992 that his request for setting aside the order of black-listing him could not be acceded to. It was, however, stated that his pending bills regarding hire charges of Matadors (commercial/private) were being cleared. This petition was filed on 6 July 1992 and it was only on 19 January 1995 that a sum of Rs.30,202.00 was paid to the petitioner which was as per the calculations made by the police department. This amount was accepted by the petitioner without prejudice to his contentions. It was stated by the respondents that an amount of Rs.616.00 had been deducted towards income tax from the amount payable to the petitioner.