LexJOSEPH VILANGANDAN versus THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS & ROADS (P.W.D.) DIVISION, ERNAULAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 514 JOSEPH VILANGANDAN v. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS & ROADS (P.W.D.) DIVISION, ERNAULAM & ORS. March 20, 1978 [R. S. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] I\Tatural Justice-Black listing of a contractor-Whether opportunity of being heard is necessary-Nature of opportunity. The appellant was a Go1,'.ernment Contractor of 16 years standing. He has been executing major building contracts. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Ernakulam, invited tenders for executing certain 1epairs to English and Mathe~ matics blocks of Maharaja College at Eril.akulam. The tender given by the appellant was accepted, and a formal agreement was executed. The agreement provided that the work should be completed within a stipulated time and that the time shall be considered as the essence of the contract. The appellant alleged that in spite of his reciuests the building was not handed over to him to enable him to start the work, and that in the meantime, the Engineers' strike supervened in which respondents 1 to 4 participated. 'Ihe Executi\'e Engineer sent a letter to the appellant asking him to show cause why the \\'Ork might not be arranged otherwise at the appellant's risk and Joss through other agencies after debarring the appellant as a defaulter and making good the loss ~hat might accrue to the department from the subsisting contract in the divison. The appellant sent a reply to the show cause notice asserting that he committed no default. The Executive Engineer finally caricelled the contract and informed the appellant; that the work was being arranged at the appellant's risk and loss through other agencies after declaring him a defaulter. The appellant was debarred from taking any contracts in future from the Department in Ernakulam Division. The appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 before the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. An aweal filed to the Division Bench also failed. The appel1ant contended in, appeal by Special Leave, that the order was illegal and void for the reasons that no opportunity was given to the appellant to represent his case before passing the impugned order. 'The respondent con- tended that the notice given to the appellant requesting him to show cause why the v;.·ork might not be got done through other agencies after debarring him as a defaulter, afforded him sufficient opportunity to represent his case. Allowing the a_ppeal the Court, HELD (I) The majority judgment of the Kerala Jligh Court in the case ef Thomas v. State of Kerala whicli holds that a person Ts not entitled to a hearing before hei is black-listed must be deemed to have been over-ruled by this Court in the case· of Erusian Equipment & Chen1icals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, where it was held that fundamentals of fairplay require that the person con- cerned should be a;iven an Qpportunity to represent hi' case before he is put on the black-list. The show cause notice given to the appellant, if construed in the context of the entire para, could be understood as conveying no more than that an action v;ith reference to the contract in question only, was under con- templation. There are no words in the notice which could give a clear intima- tion to the addressee that it was proposed to debar hin1 from taking any. contract whatever in future under the Department. The appellant was thus not afforded adequate opportunity to represent against the impugned action \Vhich must, therefore, be held to be bad in law. [518 E-F, 519 A-B, DJ Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1975] 2 S.C.R, explained; Thomas v. State of Kera/a I.L.R. 1968(2) Kerala 1 (F.B.) overruled. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appe!l) No. 2448 of 1968. • \ • - • • VILANGANDAN v. E.E. (P.W.D.) ERNAKULAM (Sarkaria, J.) 515 T. C. Raghavan, Sardar Bahadur Saharya & Vishnu Bahadur A Saharya for the appellant. S. V. Gupte & K. M. K. Nair for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J.-This appeal by special leave directed against a B Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court raises a question with regard to the validity of an order dated June 20, 1968 whereby the Executive Engineer debarred the appellant from taking any fur- ther contract under the Buildings & Roads Division, Ernakulam. The appellant is ~ Government Contractor of 16 years standing. He has been executing m_ajor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.