MSV INTERNATIONAL Vs. HSRDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner-firm in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that vide order dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P.11, it has been blacklisted by the respondent.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of this case, as narrated in the petition may be noticed. In the year 2009, the respondent awarded a contract, Annexure P.1 to the petitioner for providing supervision consultancy services for the work of improvement by widening, strengthening and providing side drains and C.C. pavement on various roads in District Gurgaon. The petitioner had been performing its obligations as per the terms and conditions of the contract. On 13.9.2010, Annexure P.2, it wrote a letter to the respondent pointing out the difficulties being faced for constructing carriage way and shoulders of the road. On 20.8.2011, the petitioner sent a communication to M/s Shakeel Haider Engineers and Contractors, Faridabad requesting it to submit ATRby 22.8.2011. On 26.8.2011, Annexure P.5, the respondent requested the petitioner to communicate to the contractor in writing of remedial measures alongwith reasons of damages. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 9.9.2011, Annexure P.6 to the respondent clarifying all the points raised by it. The petitioner wrote various other letters to the contractor to do the needful well in time. Thereafter, the petitionerfirm received a letter dated 9.11.2011, Annexure P.11 from the respondent regarding blacklisting for a period of three years. Hence the instant petition.

(3.) The primary challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that opportunity of hearing had not been provided to it before passing the order of blacklisting. It was also submitted that it was unjust and unfair in the facts and circumstances of the case to blacklist the petitioner-firm for a period of three years especially when there was no default on its part.