RAVINDER SINGH Vs. F C I AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order issued on 17.09.2010 terminating a road transport contract issued already in favour of the petitioner and further order dated 14.01.2011 terminating another contract from Mukerian to Kashmir Valley. The termination was brought about and blacklisting was made when the goods which were entrusted to the petitioner for transportation were replaced with some inferior quality of rice. When it was noticed, a communication was sent on 26.05.2010 referring to Clause XIX of Model Tender Form (in short 'MTF') that he shall not mix the bags of different kind of foodgrains bags containing different quality of the same grains, and as well as to Clause XII of the MTF that the contractor shall be responsible for the safety of the goods when they are loaded on the trucks from the godown until they have been unloaded from the trucks and making an imputation that both the Clauses had been breached. The alleged replacement had been verified by a Committee of AGM (Quality Control), The Manager (quality control depot) and Transport Assistant of Kartarpur Depot. This was characterized as gross impropriety, being in violation of the terms and the notice called upon the petitioner as to why the action for termination of the contract due to the misconduct could not be taken. There had been a reply requesting for a period of 15 days stating that due to the disturbed conditions in the Valley the clean chit could not be produced. Again the respondents have issued a notice on 12.08.2010 through registered post referring to the representation received from the petitioner on 19.07.2010 providing for a last opportunity of 15 days to explain the position. The petitioner has again sent a letter on 23.08.2010, acknowledging the letter dated 12.08.2010 and praying for 15 more days time on the plea that the law and order situation in J & K was bad and it would still not be possible to get a clean chit from the receiving end and that it was possible only after restoration of normalcy. After this reply the impugned order has been passed, terminating the contract and blacklisting.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the General Manager had observed that there is no change in the quality and quantity and further there was no specific notice to show-cause why blacklisting could not be done. According to the petitioner, blacklisting involves civil consequences and the same cannot be done without adequate notice.

(3.) I will find that there is no reference specifically to respond to the malpractices on the pain of being blacklisted, if the reply was not satisfactory. The notice was only contemplating a proposed action to terminate the contract. There has been an inquiry marked when there was no adequate explanation for several discrepancies, which were found. In particular, the inquiry revealed four distinct discrepancies as enumerated in the report as follows: