MULTI MANTECH INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted its technical and financial bid, which came to be selected by the respondents, and the petitioner came to be appointed as a Consultant by the Panam Project Division, Godhra. Accordingly, vide order dtd. 5/2/2020, work order came to be issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.3- Executive Engineer, Panam Project Division, Godhra. It is further submitted that the petitioner had completed the contracted work on 15/3/2021 within the extended period. The contract provided for defect liability period of 12 months, which too expired. That no complaint, either oral or in writing, was made during the duration of the contract or during the defect liability period with respect to the performance of the contractual obligation of the petitioner company. Learned counsel further submits that by letter dtd. 6/5/2022, the respondent No.3 stated that an error has been committed by the petitioner company with respect to the formula for calculating price variation clause in the tender document, which is likely to cause monetary loss to the State Government. The petitioner company was called upon to offer explanation for the same. The petitioner company responded to the said letter dtd. 6/5/2022 on 1/8/2022, wherein it was stated that ambiguity has occurred due to typographical formatting of formula in word file to PDF. The petitioner company clarified that there were sufficient clauses in the conditions of contract and the main tender documents prepared by the petitioner reserving the right of the tender inviting authority to correct any apparent mistake in the tender terms and also precluding the contractor from taking undue advantage of any error or omission in the tender document. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the respondent No.3 wrote another communication to the petitioner on 30/8/2022 informing that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not accepted and further, appropriate action shall be taken as per the terms of the contract. Thereafter, the petitioner company replied to the said communication by letter dtd. 26/9/2022. That thereafter, various communications took place between the petitioner and the respondent No.3. Finally, the respondent No.3 issued a notice dtd. 26/7/2024 stating that no response was received from the petitioner with respect to the earlier communications dtd. 30/8/2022 and 9/12/2022 and also stating that the State Government has instructed to initiate action against the petitioner for negligence in performance of the contractual obligations and accordingly, the notice was served on the petitioner calling upon it to submit its reply within 10 days, failing which its security deposit shall be forfeited and proceedings shall be initiated for blacklisting / keep in abeyance the licence of the petitioner company. The learned counsel submits that simultaneously, without waiting for the reply of the petitioner and in spite of the time of 10 days being granted to the petitioner to reply to such communication dtd. 26/7/2024, the respondent No.3 by another communication of the same date, i.e. 26/7/2024, addressed to the respondent No.2, has recommended that the petitioner be blacklisted for a period of 3 years and appropriate orders be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant thereto, the respondent No.1- Officer on Special Duty (Irrigation Project) has addressed a communication/ order dtd. 13/9/2024 to the respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner company should not be awarded any work/ contract from the respondent department for a period of 3 years. The learned counsel further submits that though the respondent No.3 had called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be blacklisted, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner and without taking into consideration any of the responses which were given by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 who had issued various show cause notices. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is de hors any reasoning. He submits that the said impugned order is also in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nidhi Vyas appearing on behalf of the respondent- State submits that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to show cause by various communications and in response thereto, the petitioner company has also given its replies. She submits that on the basis of the said communications/ replies received from the petitioner company, the respondent No.3 has forwarded the proposal for blacklisting / keep in abeyance the licence of the petitioner company for a period of 3 years. She submits that taking into consideration the submissions and the documents forwarded along with the proposal, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order. She submits that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the proposal sent by the respondent No.3. She, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order.