M/s.Sikander Ali Zolawat v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated

12.6.2001 (Anx.10) whereby the petitioner has been black-listed by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. (2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that after completion of the tender process for transportation and lifting the garbage in Hawamahal Zone, Jaipur, the petitioner firm was given work order dated 3.7.2000 (Anx.1), for a period of one year, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender notice, out of which one was that the period of the work contract could be extended by another one year. The period of the work order given to the petitioner was to expire on 3.7.2001. However, the same was curtailed to 15.9.2000, against which the petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, wherein interim injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that the Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 26.5.2001 to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not removing the garbage in time with the further notice that its name would be black listed and the work will be got done at the risk and cost of the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted 2 reply to the said show cause notice denying the allegations made therein and further stated that the notice was vague and it had not been mentioned as to which clause of the terms and conditions of the tender has been violated. The petitioner further submitted that payment of the bills for five months had been withheld and on 28.5.2001 inspection was carried out and it was found that the garbage had been removed and there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner also referred to the grant of injunction in the civil suit. The petitioner then mentioned the fact that it had discharged its contractual obligation with honesty, labour and truthfulness, with the further prayer that its bills may be released. Subsequently, the Ward Members have also found that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in the matter of removing the garbage.

The said documents are on record of the writ petition. It is then stated in the writ petition that the order of back listing the petitioner has been passed without providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing and without giving any reason, therefore, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and arbitrary. (3) Municipal Corporation has filed reply to the writ petition and affirmed the contents of the notice with the further averment that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. (4) This Court passed interim order on 7.8.2001 whereby it was directed that the operation of the order dated 12.6.2001 shall remain stayed. (5) Counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that during the pendency of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner has also performed other work order of the Municipal Corporation satisfactorily. (6) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity and the Municipal Corporation has also not taken into consideration the letters of the Ward Members wherein they have expressed their satisfaction and further in the order of black listing the 3 petitioner, no reason has been assigned. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: