TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Division, Ernakulam. The appellant is a Government Contractor of 16 years standing. He has been executing major building contracts. The, Executive Engneer, P.W.D. Ernakulam (Respondent No. 1) invited tenders for ,executing certain repairs to the English and Mathematics Blocks of the Maharaja College at Ernakulam. The appellant submitted a tender, dated March 8, 1967, for doing this work. In response to a letter from Respondent 1, the appellant sent his consent letter, dated March 27, 1967 (Ex. p-1), agreeing to reduced rates of certain items of the work, on the condition that as soon as the Selection Notice is issued the building should be got vacated to facilitate the starting of the work . The tender was then accepted by the Executive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been got vacated so far. The completion period a per the tender for the work, i.e., 6 months is over. Now the cost of materials and labour have increased considerably. In the above circumstances I request that I may kindly be released from the above agreement of work and the security may be released. On April 17, 1.968, the Executive Engineer sent a Notice (Ex. P-6) to the appellant, which reads as follows : The fulfilment of the undertaking given by the department to give facilities to carry out the work as soon as you start the work was not even necessitated as you have failed even to commence the work as per the terms of the contract.... You are, therefore, requested to show cause within seven days from the date of this n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight in holding the appellant a defaulter; nor had he any power or jurisdiction to 'black- list' or rebar the appellant from taking further contracts in Ernakulam Division. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 1, it was. stated : (a) The Principal of the College when the work had to be carried out reported that the work may be done after the monsoon was over. (b) During the period of the Engineers' strike from 11-8-67 to 5-10-67 also there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner (Appellant) had approached either the Administrative Officer or work Superintendent or instructions to start the work and as soon as No Work Programme was over, the Assistant Engineer issued a notice by registered p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant, submits that apart from the competency of the Executive Engineer to 'black- list' or debar the appellant from faking contracts with B R Department in Ernakulam Division, the impugned order was illegal and void for the reason that no opportunity was given to the Appellant to represent his case before he was put on the 'black list'. For this contention, reliance has been placed on the recent decision of this Court in Erusian Equipment Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal.( [1975] 2 S.C.R.674) As against the above, the learned Attorney General has drawn our attention to the fact that a notice, dated April 17, 1968 (Ex. P-6) was given by the Executive Engineer to the appellant requesting the latter to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o carry on any occupation, trade or business, such as is contemplated by Article 19(1)(g). (Parenthesis, within brackets, added). The majority judgment of the Kerala High Court, inasmuch as it holds that a person is not entitled to a hearing, before: he is blacklisted, must be deemed to have been overruled by the decision of this Court in Erusian Equipment (ibid) wherein it was held that fundamentals of fairplay require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. Controversy in the instant case, therefore, narrows down into the issue, whether such an opportunity was given to the appellant. Answer to this question will turn on an interpretation of the notice, dated A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the department in handing over the building to him for starting the work within the time specified in the agreement, and consequently, if any loss would be incurred by the department in getting the work done through any other agency, he would not be liable to make good the same. In short, the letter (Ex. P-6) dated April 17, 1968 from the Executive Engineer, did not give any clear notice to the appellant that action to debar him from taking in future any contract, whatever, under the department or its Ernakulam Division was in contemplation. The appellant was thus not afforded adequate opportunity to represent against the impugned action. This being the position, the rule in Erusian Equipment's case (ibid) will be attracted with full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
