- (1.) Heard the Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ram Raj, Sri Pratul Kumar for respondents No. 2 to 5 and Sri K.K. Shukla for Union of India. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.09 passed by the Divisional Engineer (A & P), B.S.N.L., Sitapur (respondent No. 4), by means of which for non-compliance of the requirement of entering into contract in pursuance of the approval of its bid for Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) of the engine/alternator sets, his security money has been forfeited and a direction has been issued that the petitioner firm shall not be given AMC for a period of one year. After the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner appears to have made a representation on 21.12.09 challenging the said order on various ground. The said representation, which was termed as appeal for justice, has also been decided and rejected vide order dated 12.3.2010. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Sri Ram Raj, Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the order impugned dated 10.9.2009 is an order of blacklisting, which has been passed without issuing any notice i.e., without affording any opportunity and, therefore, the said order is bad.
(3.) He relies upon the case of Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another, 1994 Supp2 SCC 699, wherein, the name of the existing contractor on the panel prepared by the respondent-Public Sector Unit was deleted from the list of qualified contractors on account of vigilance report and consequently it was not issued the tender form, which was taken to an order of blacklisting, without affording opportunity.;