MAHAVEER HAT MANUFACTURING CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to quash the order passed by the Director General of Supplies & Disposals (Sacond respondent) on 19th Augast. 1987 black listing the firm which has been described as petitioner No. 1 of which at the relevant time petitioners No. 2 to 4 alone were the partners and in which firm petitioners No. 5 to 10 had also become partners when this writ petition was filed .Though the order which is said to be secret black listing the petitioner-firm has not been filed it is common ground that the order blacklisting the petitioner-firm was passed. It is contended that the same was passed on the recommendation of the Special Police Establishment who investigated the matter.

(2.) It is stated in the return, in the affidavit of Shri Dua Ditta, Under Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) on behalf of the third respondent, namely, the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Railways, that tenders were invited for the supply of cloth surge blue worsted superior 54/56 on the terms and conditions stated in the I.T. and that the petitioner submitted a tender of supply of 1000) yards of such cloth, the sa-ne having been accepted by third respondent. The goods were to be supplied F.O.R. Amritsar. The tender was accompanied by a sample of cloth. The petitioner firm, however, faild to keep up the delivery dates. Subsequently as a result of Special Police Eastablishment's investigation certainamal practices by the petitioner-firm are stated to have been disclosed and the petitioner firm was blacklisted. The said order having been communicated to the various departments of the Goverment but not to the petitioner firm. Subsequent to the said blacklisting order no order was to be placed with the firm and no correspondence was to be entered by the Government with the firm.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the said order of blacklisting was known to the petitioner-firm only by the end of March, 1969. In addition to the assertions made that they had not engaged in any malpractices the impugned order is said to be vitiated on account of the violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner not hiving been given any opportunity to show cause against the proposed action, namely of blacklisting them.