PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC. versus MIS. RASHTRIYA PARIYOJANA NIRMAN NIGAM AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 07-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-;, 
< 
I 
' 
PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
MIS. RASHTRIYA PARIYOJANA NIRMAN NIGAM 
AND ORS. ETC. 
MAY 7, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Co11tract-Black-listi11g of Contractor-Effect of-Patna Regional C 
Development Authority i11viti11g te11ders for co11st1uctio11 of a building-Tender 
of lowest quotations submitted by a contractor who had been black-listed by 
the State Water Resources Depa1tment rejected and contract given to other 
bidde,.....Held, Tender Committee rightly took i11ta account the fact of black-
listing of the Contracto,.....This was a releva11t consideration in decidi11g D 
whether a contract should be give11 to him-The decisio11 ca11not be considered 
as arbitrary or unreasonable. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order VIII Rule 5--Pleadings-17teory of no11-traversaf--Proving of 
statement of facts made in pleadingr-ln spite of the tender of respondent 
offering lowest quotations, contract denied to him as he had bee11 black-listed 
for five years-High Court setting aside the order passed by the Government 
black-listing the contractor an the ground that the order was not served on the 
co11tractar and the fact of no11-service of the order was not denied by the 
Department and as such there was 11on-traverse of the statement made by the 
respo11dent that the order was 11ot received by him-Held, the Department had 
clearly pleaded that the order black-listing the co11tractor was cammu11icated 
E 
F 
ta him-This cal!llot be constrned as nan-traverse-lll view of the proviso to 
Order VIII Rule 5( 1) CFC, the High Court should have asked that the receipt G 
or non-receipt of the order be proved otherwise thQ/I by the alleged admis-
sio1t-lt should not have set aside the order of black-listing after a lapse of 
four years only an the grau11d of alleged nan-traverse. 
Doctrine· of 11011-traversaf-Explained. 
377 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19961SUPP.2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7829 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.95 of the Patna High 
Court in L.P.A. No. 912 of 1995. 
B 
Soli J. Sorabjce, K.D. Prasad, AN. Bardayar, T.N. Singh, Sushi! Kr. 
Jain, AP. Dhamija, Atul Chitale, Ms. S. A Chitalc for the appearing 
parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
Leave granted. 
The Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinatier referred to 
as the 'appellants') invited tenders for the construction of a high rise 
building 'Maurya Towers' in the town of Patna, of the three bids which 
were submitted, the bid of the first respondent, namely, Rashtriya 
D Pariyojana Nirman Nigam was found to be the lowest. The second lowest 
bid was of respondent No. 4. M/s. Walia Builders. Although the tender 
submitted by the first respondent was the lowest, the Committee took into 
account the fact that the first respondent had been black-listed for a period 
of five years by the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar 
E 
under a black-listing order dated 26.9.1991, and decided not to award the 
contract to the first respondent. Instead, it awarded the contract to the 
fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, after negotiation, agreed to do 
the work al the rates offered by the first respondent. 
This decision of the appellants was challenged by the first respondent 
F 
by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3964 of 1995 which was filed 
on 13.6.1995 in the Patna High Court. The first respondent also filed 
another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4064 of 1995 challenging the 
• black-listing order of 26.9.1991. Writ Petition C.W .J.C. No. 4064 of 1995 
was rejected by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court by his 
G order dated 18.9.1995 on the ground of delay, since the order of black-
listing was challenged more than four years after it was made. The first 
respondent filed an appeal to a Division Bench of the Patna High Court 
being L.P.A No. 1473 of 1995. 
Writ Petition C. W..T .C. No. 3964 of 1995 filed by the first respondent 
H against the decision not· to award the contract to it, was allowed by a 
' 
PATNA REGNL. DEV.AUTIJORITY 1·. RASHTRIYA PARlYOJANANIRMANNIGAr-.1 379 
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. He held, inter alia, that 
before the appellants decided not to award the contract to the first respon-
dent on the ground of its being black-listed, no sho\v-cause notice was 
issued by the appellants to the first respondent. Hence their decision was 
aga

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.