Skip to main content

Govt can't blacklist private firm without show cause notice: Delhi High Court

A private firm cannot be barred or blacklisted from doing business with the government or its agencies without a proper show cause notice as such actions have "serious" consequences, the Delhi High Court has said.

"It is an undisputed proposition of law that since an order debarring a person from doing business with the government or its agencies carries serious civil consequences, no such order can be passed without giving notice to him, requiring him to show cause against the proposed debarring/blacklisting," Justice V K Jain said.

The court's observation came in a verdict by which it quashed a circular of Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

DDA blacklisted M/s Thermo Blow Engineers, engaged in manufacturing and supply of sports and fitness equipment, from taking part in future tenders on the ground that it supplied faulty belts and decks for the treadmills in 2012.

DDA, in one of letters, alleged that due to faulty spares, "jerk was felt during workout of treadmill and there were chances of the user getting injured during the workout".

Seeking replacement of equipment, DDA issued a notice to the firm saying "... you (company) are therefore informed that why not actions should be initiated as deemed fit."

DDA followed up its notice, which did not indicate the proposed action, by issuing a circular on August 7, 2012 to debar the firm from taking part in future tenders for an indefinite period.

"It would, thus, be seen that there was no reference to the proposed debarring/blacklisting in the above-referred communication... In any case, the petitioner could not have taken this communication as an opportunity to explain his position qua the proposed blacklisting/debarring. The notice issued to the petitioner does not specify the action DDA proposes to take against it," the court said.

Artcile referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-04/news/39740817_1_show-cause-notice-dda-delhi-development-authority

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more