Prantik Care Earth Geo Info Solution Private Limited & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI WPA 2386 of 2025 Prantik Care Earth Geo Info Solution Private Limited & Anr. The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. : Mr. Diptendra Nath Mallick, Adv. For the Petitioners Mr. Dipak Kumar Mookerjee, Adv. For the State Ms. Debdooti Dutta, Adv. : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Adv. Heard on : 03.02.2026 Judgment on : 03.02.2026 Om Narayan Rai, J.:-

#1. Heard Mr. Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent State Authorities. Mr. Ghosh hands up to court a copy of the instructions forwarded to him by the Director of Land Records & Surveys and Joint Land Reforms Commissioner, West Bengal. The same is taken on record.

#2. This writ petition has been filed assailing an order of blacklisting of the petitioner no.1 (hereafter “the petitioner”) passed by the Director of Land Records & Surveys and Joint Land Reforms Commissioner, West Bengal on June 01, 2023.

#3. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit has also filed on behalf of the petitioners whereby the petitioners have has inter alia sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus thereby setting aside the order of termination of the contract between the petitioner and the respondents and has also asserted that the order of blacklisting has been passed in total derogation of the principles of natural justice. FACTS OF THE CASE:

#4. The facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present writ petition are as follows:- a) Upon successfully participating in a tender process, the petitioner was awarded a work order dated August 26, 2022 for ground surveying “using DGPS and ETS” in the mouzas indicated therein. The work order also specified that the work awarded was to be completed within eight months from the date of issuance of the work order. Subsequently, on August 25, 2022 an agreement was also entered into between the parties whereby it was reiterated that the survey-work was to be completed by the petitioner within eight months from the date of execution of the agreement. b) As the petitioner could not complete the work awarded within the time stipulated in the work order and the aforesaid agreement, a notice dated March 10, 2023 was issued to the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate (R) and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purba Bardhaman thereby calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it in terms of Clause 8 of the memorandum of agreement. The said notice was followed by another notice of the same date issued by the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia whereby the petitioner was called upon to explain the undesirable delay occasion by the petitioner completing the work. The notice cautioned that failure to complete the work would attract penal provisions in terms of Para 4.1.5 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). c) The petitioner replied to the said notices on March 13, 2023 and March 14, 2023 respectively and furnished its explanation. d) The petitioner thereafter also made representations dated March 23, 2023 and May 04, 2023 indicating the difficulties that the petitioner faced in execution of the work awarded to the petitioner. e) Ultimately, on June 01, 2023 an order was passed by the Director of Land Records & Surveys and Joint Land Reforms Commissioner, West Bengal thereby blacklisting the petitioner from taking up or participating in any kind of work under the Directorate of Land Records & Surveys for a period of three years from the date of issuance of the said order, while also recording therein that the petitioner’s contract had been terminated. f) It is the petitioner’s contention that the termination of the contract, forfeiture of the petitioner’s earnest money and blacklisting of the petitioner for a period of three years are absolutely arbitrary and illegal. It has been alleged that the blacklisting has been done without following the principles of natural justice. Hence this writ petition.

#3. It is recorded that at the very outset this Court has made it clear to the petitioner that the writ petition would be heard only on the issue pertaining to blacklisting of the petitioner and not on the issue pertaining to the termination of the contract inasmuch as the latter involves adjudication of contractual and factual disputes which a Writ Court should refrain from entering into. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

#4. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be condemned unheard. It was submitted that the notices to show- cause which were served upon the petitioner did not even whisper about the petitioner’s blacklisting being in contemplation and therefore the petitioner did not get any opportunity to represent against its blacklisting.

#5. In support of his submission that a person cannot be blacklisted without being afforded an opportunity of making appropriate representation against the proposed blacklisting, the following decisions have been citied:- a) Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.1; b) M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.2; c) Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.3;