Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) Through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the show cause notices dated 9.9.2015 (Annexure P-6), dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-8) and the orders dated 29.3.2016 (Annexure P-10) and dated 24.5.2016 (Annexure P-13) debarring/blacklisting the petitioner from participating in any work of the bank as empanelled architect. Further, a direction has been sought to the respondents to take action on the representation dated 30.4.2016 (Annexure P-14) and to release the pending payments of other projects to the petitioner.
(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner vide letter dated 3.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) sent a proposal for empanelment as architect for various works to the State Bank of Patiala. In response thereto, the name of the petitioner was approved by the Bank as architect for a period of three years vide empanelment letter dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P-2). The empanelment of the petitioner expired on 1.3.2011. In the year 2013, the petitioner was engaged independent as an architect for the work of renovation of Zonal Office Building, Chandigarh by the Bank even after the expiry of the sanctioned empanelment period. The petitioner was to play a role of an architect alone and M/s Multiview Construction Company had been engaged for physical execution of the works vide tender document, Annexure P-2A. The work started on 15.9.2013 and was got completed on 3.11.2013. After completion of the works and inspection of the work, respondent No.2 issued a satisfaction certificate dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-4) informed respondent No.2 that the contractor had executed the work as per the specifications approved by the bank and the quality and quantity of the material used had been checked in the presence of the bank officials and that all the deductions from the bill forwarded by the contractor be made at its own level. The Bank undertook maintenance contract with some other agency for the maintenance of the works so executed in the said Branch. During the period of annual maintenance contract, several modifications were made to the works and new connections were given from the main electric panel as is discernible from a perusal of the photographs, Annexure P-5. On 26.6.2015, after the expiry of 20 months from the date of completion of work, there was a minor outbreak of fire in the building which was immediately brought under control. Accordingly, a notice dated 9.9.2015 (Annexure P-6) was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be de-panelled from the approved list of Architects of the Bank. The petitioner submitted reply dated 7.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) to the said show cause notice. Another notice dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-8) was issued to the petitioner to furnish comments on the allegations levelled against it. The petitioner submitted reply dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-9) to the said notice. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 29.3.2016 (Annexure P-10) blacklisted/debarred the petitioner from participating in any work of the bank for a period of one year. The respondents asked M/s Multiview Construction Company to replace allegedly substandard items from the premises and vide letter dated 8.2.2016 (Annexure P-11), the petitioner was called upon to verify the materials used by M/s Multiview Construction Company in replacement activity. The petitioner moved the representations (Annexure P-12 Colly) to respondent No.3 for giving personal hearing and for changing its decision of blacklisting/debarring the petitioner, but to no effect. However, respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.5.2016 (Annexure P- 13) reiterated their earlier order, Annexure P-10, and confirmed the blacklisting/debarring of the petitioner from participating in any work of the Bank for a period of one year. The petitioner vide letter dated 30.4.2016 (Annexure P-14) requested the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall, Patiala for the release of payments of other projects, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. The averments made in the writ petition were controverted by the respondents by filing written statement.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 vide orders dated 29.3.2016 (Annexure P-10) and dated 24.5.2016 (Annexure P-13) had debarred the petitioner for a period of one year without affording an opportunity of hearing. It was also urged that the impugned orders do not satisfy the test of being a reasoned and speaking orders and were, thus, liable to be quashed. It was further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also claimed that the representation dated 30.4.2016 (Annexure P-14) has not been responded so far.;