PARMAR ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted tender in pursuance to the e-tender process issued by the respondent Corporation for doing catering work for 365 days. Being the lowest bidder, the bid of the petitioner has been accepted and an agreement has been executed on 16/3/2024 between petitioner and respondent No.2. Thereafter petitioner has been directed to deposit security amount and EMD amount, which was deposited by the petitioner. During Parliamentary Election, the petitioner was directed to provide lunch packets on 6/5/2024 and 7/5/2024 for the employees engaged in the election work but vide letter dt.15/4/2024, petitioner showed his inability to provide lunch packets. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15/4/2024 for negligence in work and he was directed to file reply else security amount was directed to be forfeited and blacklisting proceeding was directed to be initiated. Thereafter, petitioner was directed to supply snacks and high-tea for a meeting convened on 2/5/2024 at Election Office but quality of food items was found to be below standard, therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 3/5/2024. Thereafter, vide impugned order dtd. 4/5/2024 the agreement executed between the parties on 16/3/2024 has been rescinded, security deposit and EMD amount were forfeited and the petitioner is saddled with liability of blacklisting for three years. Therefore, petitioner filed the present petition.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that detailed reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner denying the allegations lavelled against the petitioner firm. Without considering the aforesaid reply and the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondents terminated the agreement and blacklisted the petitioner with further order of forfeiture of security deposit amount and EMD amount. Before taking such action, no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. The aforesaid order being illegal, arbitrary and mala fide is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others - (2014) 9 SCC 105 so also the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Upto Mark Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and Ors - W.P.No.4059/2024 ().