- (1.) Heard the parties finally.
(2.) Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that during the contracted period, a letter dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure-3) has been issued debarring the Petitioner from taking part in any other work of the Respondents, which amounts to blacklisting without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. He further submitted that slow progress of the work was not due to any fault on the part of the Petitioner, rather Respondents themselves are responsible for the slow progress of work. He relied on Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd and Anr., 1994 Supp2 SCC 699 and Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer, (PWD), Ernakulam and Ors., 1978 3 SCC 36. He further submitted that in spite of repeated requests, forest clearance has not been obtained by the Respondents, which was one of the reasons apart from naxal activities etc. for not completing the work as per the schedule.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents, referring to the counter-affidavit, submitted that the progress of the work has been very slow since the beginning which would be clear from the monthly progress report. He further submitted that the impugned order was passed during the monthly appraisal of the progress, saying that till the pending work is completed by about 89 contractors including the Petitioner, they will be debarred from taking part in the tender issued by the Respondents and only after completion of the work, the name of the contractor will be removed from the list of contractors attached with the impugned order. He further submitted that the purported explanations are no grounds for challenging the impugned order. He further submitted that in the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order.;