9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of qualified contractors on account of what is stated to be a Vigilance Report. Consequently, the respondent did not issue the tender form for the work of 'Anti-Corrosive Coating of the Prilling Tower' of urea plant in its factory to the appellant. 3. Before its name was deleted from the list of qualified contractors, appellant was not notified of the reason for the deletion. The tender forms were issued to the remaining seven contractors, out of whom only two submitted their quotations and one of them was issued the work order on 6-1- 1993. The appellant aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. The petition was filed on 19-1-1993. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission. 5. The Full Bench decision in V. Punnen Thomas v. State of Kerala AIR 1969 Ker 81 : 1968 Ker LT 800: 1968 Ker LJ 619 presents an interesting stage in the development of law on the matter. The facts were somewhat similar. The majority opinion in that case held: "Surely, the term, 'civil consequences' means something more than consequences which the person concerned does not like. There must be at least the possibility of an invasion of some civil right of his before it can be said that anything done in respect of him has civil consequences. A mere refusal to afford a man the prospect of doing profitable or unprofitable business with the Government, of entering into advantageous relationships with the Government as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different thing to say that Government can unreasonably put a person's name in a blacklist and debar him from entering into any contractual relationship with the Government for years to come. In the former case, it might be said that Government is exercising its right like any other private citizen, but no democratic government should with impunity passing proceeding which will have civil consequences to a citizen without notice and an opportunity of being heard. The reason why the proceeding for blacklisting the petitioner and debarring him from taking Government work for ten years was passed, is that he committed irregularities in connection with the tender of the contract work. An ex parte adverse adjudication that the petitioner c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been proceeded by notice and an opportunity of being heard. If anybody were to say that Ext. P-1 is an administrative proceeding and so no notice or opportunity of being heard was required and that no interference under Article 226 is possible, I would answer him in the high and powerful words of Mr Belloc, 'you have mistaken the hour of the night: it is already morning'." (p. 89) 8. The minority view of Justice Mathew is now the law. The majority view in V. Punnen Thomas case AIR 1969 Ker 81 : 1968 Ker LT 800: 1968 Ker LJ 619 is not good law and must be considered to have been, impliedly, overruled by the Erusian case . Indeed, in Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer, Buildings & Roads (PWD) Division, Ernakulam (197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order." 11. The deletion of the appellant's name from the list of approved contractors on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
