RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 1212(B) dtd. 3/9/2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 - the Project Director, I.T.D.A, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, whereby the petitioner has been put on blacklist.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondents issued tender notice dtd. 6/8/2018 for supply of shoes and socks for students of Scheduled Tribe Residential Schools running under the control of Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand for the financial year 2018-19. The respondent no. 2 approved the samples and rate. Accordingly, supply order as contained in memo no. 1426 (B) dtd. 6/9/2018 was issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 -the District Welfare Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to the suppliers annexing the list of articles. In pursuance of the said supply order, the petitioner supplied most of articles to the concerned schools on different dates and the concerned authorities of the schools received the said articles and issued the receipts of the same. The respondent no. 2 vide memo no. 761(B) dtd. 18/6/2019 asked explanation from the petitioner and one M/s Jagdamba Commercial Agency, Chaibasa within 24 hours from the date of receipt of this letter as to why they did not supply the uniforms of all the students as per their size and according to the sample. The petitioner on receipt of the letter gave assurance that it would supply rest of the articles immediately. The respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 1043(B) dtd. 2/8/2019 directed the petitioner and M/s Jagdamba Commercial Agency, Chaibasa to supply the uniforms to the concerned residential schools within 5 days from the date of receipt of the said letter, failing which action for blacklisting would be taken. The petitioner filed an application dtd. 16/8/2019 addressing the respondent no. 3 stating that it would supply the remaining articles within the said month. However, the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order as contained in memo no. 1212(B) dtd. 3/9/2019 passed the order of blacklisting of the petitioner alleging that it failed to supply the items within time in spite of repeated directions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has supplied most of the articles as per the supply order, however, the impugned order of blacklisting has been passed without following the rules, procedure and guidelines issued by the government and also without following the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the respondents have no jurisdiction to blacklist the petitioner on mere failure to supply the articles under normal circumstance. The petitioner is a supplier of government orders and its past conduct is satisfactory and has been issued experience certificate by the respondent no. 3. The impugned order of blacklisting has been passed with malafide intention since the petitioner had challenged the selection process of short tender notice issued vide memo no. 1021 (B/Ka) dtd. 29/7/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 4604 of 2019. It is also submitted that the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner has been passed for an indefinite period, which is contrary to law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Vet India Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. "reported in (2021) 1S CC 804.