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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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