Govind Kamat vs. The Managing Director And Anr

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 04.01.2019, which rejected the petitioner's tender, forfeited his EMD, and blacklisted him, was unsustainable. The Court found that although the respondents' endorsement mentioned issuing a notice, the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard before the order was passed and his name was entered into the blacklist. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and another, the Court reiterated that a person is entitled to be heard before being blacklisted. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on 14.02.2019, and the respondents were directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Govind Kamat, participated in a tender process for a refreshment/canteen at Vijayapur Central Bus Stand. He submitted an online bid of Rs. 9,56,862/- including GST, with an EMD of Rs. 15,37,305/-. The e-procurement portal indicated the financial offer was inclusive of statutory tax. The respondent accepted his bid but subsequently demanded a total payment of Rs. 72,46,688/-, which included security deposit, advance rent, and 18% GST, contrary to the portal information. The petitioner sought clarification and correction of the demand. The respondent, by endorsement dated 02.01.2019, stated the bid amount excluded GST and demanded the balance. Without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the second respondent passed an order dated 04.01.2019, rejecting the tender, forfeiting the EMD, and blacklisting the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 04.01.2019, passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's tender, forfeiting the EMD, and blacklisting the petitioner, is arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to the material on record, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contentions: The impugned order is arbitrary and erroneous as it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and another. Respondents' contentions: The respondents contended that a notice was issued to the petitioner before forfeiting the EMD and blacklisting him, thereby justifying the impugned order.