S.S. PERUMAL Vs. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the order dtd. 20/1/2016 passed by the respondent by which the respondent terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner inter alia blacklisted and prohibited him from participating in the future contracts that may be awarded by the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner would contend that he was awarded a contract on 1/3/2015 by the respondent for five years commencing from 1/3/2013 to 31/3/2018 to run Trucks with capacity of 12 KL and above to transport bulk white oil petroleum products. An agreement dtd. 1/3/2015 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. In order to give effect to the terms of the contract, the petitioner has purchased five trucks, appointed 10 drivers and 10 cleaners besides a clerical staff for monitoring the day to day transactions.

(3.) According to the petitioner, on 3/12/2015, the respondent corporation made a surprise inspection of one of the trucks bearing TN 04 T 6220 owned by him and allegedly found that the locking system was tampered with. In connection with this incident, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9/12/2015 asking him to show cause as to why action should be initiated against him for violation of Clause Nos. 2.2.6, 3.2, 4.1.2 and 8.12 of the agreement dtd. 1/3/2015. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dtd. 15/12/2015 contending inter alia that the alleged tampering is a result of defect in the fabrication of the lock and due to natural rusting owing to heavy rains and it is an act of God. In other words, the petitioner has specifically contended that there was no wilful tampering of the locking system. Inspite of such reply, the respondent has passed the order dtd. 20/1/2016, terminating the contract of the petitioner and also blacklisted him from the existing list of contractors thereby prevented him from participating in the future contracts to be awarded by the corporation. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition questioning the correctness of the above order passed by the respondent.