SANTI STORES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17. 07. 2002, passed by respondent no. 1, whereby respondent no. 1 has black listed the petitioner on permanent basis for the purpose of government purchases.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietary concern and is an approved supplier to the Government. As the Government had floated tenders for the purchase of haversacks for forest department, the petitioner filled up the said tender. The said tender was opened on 21. 10. 1999. However, on 23. 03. 2000, respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the petitioner should not be black listed for non supply of SSI Certificate and trading profit and loss accounts for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 of M/s. Super Textiles Khanpur. The petitioner replied to the said notice vide his reply dated 27. 03. 2000 by denying the said allegations. Thereafter, again on 17. 04. 2000, another show cause notice was issued against the petitioner to which the petitioner gave his reply. Thereafter, various correspondence took place between the petitioner and the respondents, but no action was taken against the petitioner. However, on 21. 04. 2002, respondent no. 1 again issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the petitioner should not be black listed for non supply of SSI certificate and balance sheet for M/s. Super Textiles. The petitioner gave detailed reply to the said notice. However, the respondent no. 1 without giving an opportunity of hearing, vide order dated 17. 07. 2002, black listed the petitioner permanently for supply of goods to the government. Hence, this petition.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 while passing the impugned order has stated that the petitioner has supplied the incorrect details in two tenders by not giving the authority letter and turn over details, whereas in the show cause notice reference of only M/s. Super Textiles has been made. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1 deserves to be quashed and set aside. On perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has black listed the petitioner permanently in view of the non-supply of SSI certificate and in correct turn over details. However, looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the respondent could have black listed the petitioner for a limited period and not permanently. However, in the impugned order reference of two tenders have been made, but there is no explanation to it.