Arumugam vs The Chairman Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.

K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.

The petitioner is a Registered Contractor in the respondent Mills. The petitioner was given the impugned order dated 24.11.2008 by the

respondent stating that he has been warned on several occasions and on the basis of the Purchase Committee''s resolution that the petitioner would

not be considered for any tender either directly or indirectly and his name must be removed from the list of registered contractors, his name has

been added in the black list.

The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner was given the work order for the purpose of bringing Labourers for doing work in the

godown attached to the sugar godown of the mill. The petitioner was not discharging the contractual terms and he has also not repacked the

damaged sugar bags. On account of the slackness on the part of the petitioner, the Management of the mill itself has to make alternative

arrangement for the purpose of doing the work. This has created a bottleneck for the Management. Because of non bringing of labourers within the

time stipulated, the godowns have overflowed and the mill was forced to stop production. In the light of these facts, the petitioner was black listed.

It is against the black listing, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

When the matter came up on 22.02.2010, notice was directed to be issued to the respondent. Pending the writ petition, no interim relief was

given to the petitioner. However, Mr. T. Seenivasan, took notice for the respondent and filed a counter affidavit dated 28.04.2010 together with

supporting documents, which are enclosed in the typed set filed along with the supporting documents.

It is seen from the documents that the petitioner was given show cause notice on 31.01.2008, 02.05.2008 and 09.06.2008. In the first show

cause notice dated 31.01.2008, the petitioner was informed about the lapse on his part and he was asked to show cause as to why his work order

should not be cancelled and why the loss should not be recovered from him. In the second show cause notice dated 02.05.2008, the petitioner

was informed that the amount would be recovered from the amount payable to him and he was once again asked to show cause as to why his

work order should not be cancelled. In the third show cause notice dated 09.06.2008, the petitioner was once again informed that the amount

should be recovered from the amount payable to him and he was also asked as to why his name should not be included in the black list.

In the counter affidavit, it was found that despite the notices, the petitioner has not responded to the notices. The Purchase Committee resolution

dated 24.11.2008 found that the petitioner should be black listed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the respondent was erroneous and he also relied upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in M/s. Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another, and in para 11 of the said judgment, it was

stated as follows:

The deletion of the appellant�s name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were some vigilance report against it,

could only be done consistent with and after due compliance with the principles of natural justice. That not having been done, it requires to be held

that withholding of the tender form from the appellant was not justified. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ

petition.

It is not clear as to how the judgment will help the case of the petitioner, when he has been given two notices on the short fall found in his work

and the third notice was subsequently on the question of black listing. The petitioner never gave any reply to the show cause notices. Therefore, it

could not be state that the impugned order has been passed without notice to him or is opposed to the principles of natural justice.

In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.