Krishan Ballabh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition to assail the order dated 07.02.2019 issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent/ respondent no. 2, whereby the blacklisting order passed against the respondent no. 4 has been recalled.

Firstly, we find that the present Writ Petition is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch as it has been preferred after nearly two and a half years after the passing of the impugned order. Even on merits we are not inclined to grant the reliefs sought.

The petitioner is a competitor of respondent no. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had challenged the award of the contract in favour of respondent no. 4, on the ground that he had relied upon a forged and fabricated experience certificate to obtain the contract. The Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed. It was found that the experience certificate provided by the respondent no. 4 was, indeed, not a correct experience certificate, and, consequently, the contract awarded in favour of the respondent no. 4 was cancelled; its security deposit forfeited, and; blacklisting order was passed against him on 27.12.2017.

It appears that, after a few months of the blacklisting, the respondent no. 4 raised a grievance with regard to the blacklisting order being passed without hearing him. The Writ Petition preferred by the respondent no. 4 was disposed of and the respondent-authorities were asked to reconsider the matter, and take appropriate action. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 represented to the respondent-authorities, and, on the basis of the legal advice, the respondent-authorities withdrew the blacklisting order passed against the 2 respondent no. 4 by the impugned order dated 07.02.2019. As a consequence of the furnishing of the false experience certificate, the respondent no. 4, therefore, suffered cancellation of the contract; forfeiture of the security deposit, and; blacklisting for the period from 27.12.2017 to 07.02.2019 i.e. about 14 months.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that the petitioner was not heard before recalling the order of blacklisting of respondent no. 4.

We do not find any merit in this submission. It was a matter entirely between the respondent-authorities and the respondent no. 4 as to whether, or not, the blacklisting of respondent no. 4 should have been continued, and, if so, on what terms and conditions. The petitioner, being a competitor, had no right to be heard in such proceedings. Merely because blacklisting of the respondent no. 4 occurred on account of the illegality pointed out by the petitioner, it does not mean that the petitioner had a right to be heard by the respondent-authorities, with regard to the blacklisting of the respondent no. 4.

The further submission of Mr. Barthwal is that the respondent-authorities have merely withdrawn the blacklisting order on the basis of the legal opinion, and they have not taken any further action against the respondent no. 4.

Once again, we do not find any merit in this submission. As aforesaid, it was for the respondent-authorities to take a decision in the matter. Considering the fact that the contract was cancelled; the security deposit of respondent no. 4 was forfeited, and; the respondent no. 4 suffered blacklisting for nearly 14 months, in our view, the respondent-authorities were justified in taking the view that the respondent no. 4 had been subjected to sufficient penalty for its wrongdoing. It is not for the petitioner to judge the extent of punishment or penalty that the respondent no. 4 should have been subjected to, for its wrongful act.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.