- (1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.1 vide which the petitioners and respondent No.3, i.e. firm and the directors of the firm, have been blacklisted permanently from doing the business with the Haryana Government.
(2.) Petitioner No.1-firm is a manufacturer of tarpaulins and are supplying the tarpaulins to various Government Undertakings. 90% business of the petitioners are based on tenders of the Government Undertaking as the tarpaulins are being used by the godowns to cover the wheat and rice. Respondent No.2 published a tender notice for supply of tarpaulins in the State of Haryana. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners submitted the tender along with earnest money. The petitioners' firm was selected as tenderer but no intimation was given to them and, therefore, they could not comply with the conditions of the tender including the deposit of security. However, on 31.3.2008, the petitioners received a letter from the respondents informing that they had failed to deposit security within the stipulated time and, therefore, the security paid by way of earnest money was forfeited. The petitioners filed reply to the said letter praying therein that the security amount be not forfeited. Thereafter, the firm received a show cause notice dated 20.5.2008 for blacklisting the firm on account of nondepositing of the security. The petitioners filed a detailed reply to the said show cause notice. The petitioners vide letter dated 11.8.2008 requested the respondents for a date of meeting. Respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 5.10.2010 without affording an opportunity of hearing blacklisted petitioner No.1-firm as well as petitioner No.2 and performa respondent No.3 in their personal capacity permanently from doing the business with Haryana Government. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) The claim of the petitioners has been controverted by the respondents by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that the first three lowest valid bidders including the petitioners' firm were requested to depute their representatives for negotiations before the High Powered Purchase Committee (HPPC) scheduled for 11.3.2008 through fax dated 7.3.2008. As per the HPPC, the acceptance letter was issued to the firm of the petitioners vide registered letter dated 18.3.2008 asking them to deposit security amounting to Rs.7,20,000/- within 10 days from the date of issuance of letter. It was also mentioned in the said letter that on failure to deposit the security, the earnest money would be forfeited by the Government as per the terms and conditions of the tender. Having failed to deposit the security within the stipulated period by the petitioners, the earnest money was forfeited vide letter dated 31.3.2008. Subsequently, letter dated 18.3.2008 which had been issued to the petitioners was received back on 4.4.2008 with the remarks "unclaimed window delivery". According to the State, the petitioners had intentionally and deliberately avoided the receipt of the acceptance letter. Having failed to deposit security amount, respondent No.2 moved to respondent No.1 recommending blacklisting of the firm along with its directors. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 23.7.2008 to the petitioners to explain their position within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter as to why penal action of permanently blacklisting their firm along with its Directors from doing business with the Haryana Government be not taken against them. The firm vide its letter dated 1.8.2008 submitted its reply to the State Government. Accordingly, impugned order dated 5.10.2010 declaring petitioner No.1-firm as well as petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3, Directors of the firm as blacklisted permanently from doing the business with the Haryana Government was passed by respondent No.1.;