D K ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR DEVENDRA KUMAR THAKUR Vs. NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the respondents thereby terminating the contract of the petitioner as well as the petitioner's firm has been black listed.

(2.) The petitioner is proprietor of M/s. D.K. Enterprises. The said firm is registered in the Commercial Tax Department and TIN No. is 23247305922. The respondents have invited the tender for running and maintenance of J.E.T. Hostel (including catering for a period of one year), the petitioner submitted tender documents on 18.10.2014. The tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted and Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 22.01.2015. That after issuance of LOI, an agreement was executed on 20.01.2015. The petitioner thereafter commenced the work and payment has also been made in lieu of the work performed by the petitioner. On 19.11.2015, a show-cause was issued to the petitioner, in which validity of TIN number of the petitioner's firm was asked. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show-cause notice on 04.12.2015 and submitted that the TIN No.23247305922 allotted by the Commercial Tax Department is alive since 2008. The order dated 03.12.2015 was passed by the respondents thereby black-listing the petitioner's firm on the ground that the petitioner's firm has violated the terms and conditions of the tender and has provided wrong information to secure the contract. A similar notice was issued on 20.08.2015 by which the petitioner was asked to produce TIN number. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 05.09.2015. Without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents passed an order dated 26.09.2015 thereby terminating the contract of the petitioner. Similar show-cause notices dated 24.09.2015 and 29.09.2015 were also issued. The petitioner again submitted a reply to the aforesaid notices. However, no action has been taken in the matter, the petitioner has therefore filed the present petition challenging the said order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the respondents thereby black-listing the petitioner's firm is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is submitted that by the impugned order, the petitioner's firm was black-listed for three years, which is a major penalty imposed on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the aforesaid illegal order has been passed by the respondents after getting notice of Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P. No.1266/2015. It is also submitted that the grounds on which the petitioner's firm has been black-listed is also illegal. It is also submitted that the registration of TIN number was cancelled in the year 2011 and against the said order of cancellation, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the competent authority and the competent authority vide order dated 16.01.2015 has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, thus, the registration of TIN number was restored to its original number. It is further submitted that the order dated 26.09.2015, by which the contract was terminated was also illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that no separate show-cause notice to the petitioner was issued before blacklisting the petitioner's firm. The order of blacklisting the petitioner's firm affects widely and fair play on the part of the respondents was necessary. Only a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner to show the correctness of TIN number. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., 2007 8 SCC 89 and Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding, Nathpa, H.P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I, 2007 10 SCC 337.