SURYA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) .The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order by which the petitioner was blacklisted without even issuance of any notice or initiating any proceeding in this regard and in a most arbitrary fashion. He came to know of this blacklisting only when such an order was published in the newspaper on 3rd of December, 2005. It appears that the Bihar State Health Society through its Special Secretary -cum -Executive Director published a tender notice (Annexure 1) calling for tenders in respect of certain stationery and other materials. The tenders were to be submitted by 25th November, 2005 and were to be opened at 3 P.M. on the same day. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated and filed histender. The tenders were opened on 25.11.2005 and thereafter they were called for negotiation on 26.11.2005. The rates were altered and with reference to Annexure A of the counter affidavit it is clear that the petitioner revised his rates and undertook to supply the same within the time schedule. Petitioner asserts that he thereafter enquired about the time schedule. He was asked to contact one person with a N.G.O. when the petitioner contacted the said person he was told that all supplies have to be made by 9.12.2005. He immediately then protested to the Executive Director that the time fixed was very short as one item was not readily available in the market, he did not receive any response to the aforesaid. On 29.11.2005 when he made further enquiry he learnt that order had been placed with some one else and his request was probably turned down. On 3rd December, that is, after four days he read in newspaper that he had been blacklisted. It is accordingly under the said circumstances the present writ application was filed.

(3.) REGRETTABLY neither that letter nor anywhere in the counter affidavit it has been categorically stated that the time schedule for supply was ever fixed earlier. Neither in the counter affidavit nor at the bar it is stated that the statement made in the writ petition that the date was subsequently fixed has been denied. No document has been produced contrary to the statements made in the writ petition. Thus its stand established that the date by which supplies have to be made was not disclosed prior to the tender or even at the time when tender was finalised. In my view this vitiates the entire process. It was an agreement to do some work without time stipulation.