Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure P-21) issued by respondent No.2 debarring and blacklisting the petitioner from working as a contractor for the Municipal Corporation.
(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 11.6.2005 (Annexure P-1) inviting Expression of Interests, in respect of renovation/maintenance of the toilet blocks and the maintenance of the Garbage Collection Centres in the markets of SAS Nagar, Mohali. In response, thereto, the petitioner submitted its bids/tenders. The petitioner being the highest bidder was allotted the aforesaid work. An agreement dated 25.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for a period of five years. At the time of execution of the agreement, a list (Annexure P-2/A) of 22 garbage collection centres was given to the petitioner whereas possession of only 20 sites was handed over. The petitioner vide letter dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) informed respondent No.2 that only 34 locations had been provided to it for construction of the garbage points. Further, the factum of renovation of eight toilet blocks was also intimated. Vide letter dated 23.5.2008 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.2 was told that due to demolition of three garbage collection centres by the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner had suffered huge losses and vide letter dated 1.8.2008 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.2 was requested to provide alternative sites in lieu of the demolished sites. The petitioner obtained an internal correspondence (noting sheet) dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-6) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 prepared by the Inspector of the Municipal Corporation and submitted for approval of the higher authorities, wherein it has been admitted that the complete sites of garbage collection centres were not handed over to the petitioner and out of the centres handed over to the petitioner, some had been damaged by the Municipal Corporation/GMADA while widening the roads or beautifying the city. Further, as per the noting dated 1.11.2013 (Annexure P-6A), the garbage collection centres constructed by the petitioner were also not handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner continued to deposit the licence fee of the handed over sites to respondent No.2 and in total deposited an amount of Rs. 24,89,000/- as is discernible from calculation sheet (Annexure P-7). Two of the business rival of the petitioner, namely, Super Publicity Private Limited and Taksh Media Private Limited, filed a complaint dated 10.7.2012 (Annexure P-8) before respondent No.2 levelling serious allegations of pending dues of Rs. 80 lacs. Thereafter, they filed CWP No. 13112 of 2012 for cancellation of the contract allotted to the petitioner and this Court vide order dated 16.7.2012 (Annexure P-9) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass a speaking order on the representations of the petitioners therein. In pursuance thereto, respondent No.3 vide order, Annexure P-10, observed that an amount of Rs. 10,87,500/- was outstanding regarding licence fee against the petitioner. The Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 27.7.2012 (Annexure P-11) raised a demand of Rs. 10,87,500/- from the petitioner in respect of balance licence fee. The petitioner furnished reply dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure P-12) to the said letter. The Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P- 13) informed the petitioner that the demand of Rs. 10,87,500/- had been raised for the handed over locations only. Further, the Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P-14) raised a demand of Rs. 2,88,39,000/-. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-15) to respondent No.4 for withdrawal of the letters, Annexures P-11 and P-14, respectively. Again respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 20.1.2014 (Annexure P-16) to the petitioner for depositing the licence fee of Garbage Collection Centre and Toilet Block to which the petitioner submitted reply dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure P-17). Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure P-18) called the representative of the petitioner for personal hearing. The petitioner vide letters dated 17.2.2014 and 3.3.2014 (Annexure P-19 Colly) requested for a date for personal hearing. However, respondent No.4 vide letter dated 7.3.2014 (Annexure P-20) directed the petitioner to deposit the entire dues without affording any further opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, respondent No.2 debarred and blacklisted the petitioner as communicated by respondent No.4 vide letter dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure P-21). Hence, the present writ petition. Upon notice of motion having been issued, respondents No.2 to 4 filed written statement pleading that the petitioner was liable to pay the licence fee plus penalty of Rs. 2,88,39,000/-. Despite service of notice, the petitioner neither deposited the amount nor appeared for personal hearing on two dates, i.e. on 20.2.2014 and 4.3.2014. It was further pleaded that respondent No.2 filed a civil suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 2,88,39,000/- which is pending. The other averments made in the writ petition were controverted and a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made. The petitioner denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated that of the averments made in the writ petition by filing the replication.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in view of pronouncement of the Apex Court in M/s Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, W.T. Project BSNL, AIR 2014 SC 9 has assailed the order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure P-21) on the ground that the petitioner had been blacklisted/ debarred for the unlimited period. The challenge has also been made by contending that it is without issuance of any notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The power of respondent No.2 to blacklist/debar the petitioner under the contract has also been questioned. It was also urged that the impugned order does not satisfy the test of being a reasoned and speaking order and is, thus, liable to be quashed. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.;