MEGH NATH BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of Annexures P.10 and P.13 vide which the official respondents deleted the name of the petitioners from the approved list of contracts maintained by Ambala Division of Northern Railway for engineering works.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding this petition are that the petitioners were registered as contractors on the approved list of 'C' class on Ambala Division of Northern Railway. In the year 1996-97, Divisional Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 4) floated a tender for the work of improvement of staff quarters at Bhatinda in Block Nos. 363, 362, 355, E-120, T-259 and T-77 (total 60 units). Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 submitted tenders in their individual capacity as well as on behalf of petitioner No. 3. Vide letter dated 18.11.1996, respondent No. 4 informed petitioner No. 1 about the acceptance of tender and called upon him to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money. Finally, the contracts worth Rs. 28,39,700/- and Rs. 26,82,400/- were awarded to petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively. After about two months, respondent No. 4 wrote letter Annexure P.10 to petitioner No. 1 conveying the decision of the administration to delete his name from the list of approved contractors. Vide Annexure P.11 dated 29.12.1997, the decision regarding removal of the name of petitioner No. 1 from the approved list was circulated among various authorities of the Northern Railway, Ambala Division. Simultaneously, the General Manager, Northern Railway wrote confidential letter (Annexure P.12) to the Executive Director/Civil Engg. (G), Railway Board, New Delhi that all business dealings with the petitioners may be banned.

(3.) THE following two questions arise for adjudication in this petition : (i) whether deletion of the petitioners name from the approved list is liable to be invalidation on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem ? and (ii) whether the rule of hearing has, in fact, been violated in this case ? Shri D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners argued that the decision taken by the respondents should be declared as void because no action-oriented notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. Learned Counsel submitted that the deletion of the petitioners' names from the approved list amounted to their black-listing and before taking such decision the respondents should have given show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As against this, Shri Deepak Thapar argued that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied to the cases which fall in the realm of contract. He argued that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the so-called adverse decision, then they are free to file suit for damages.