M/s Bhola & Company, Ludhiana vs State of Punjab and another

The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana dated 24.02.2015 blacklisting them for a period of ten years from the date of the order from bidding for multi-level parking contract singly/jointly, directly/indirectly.

Pursuant to the tenders invited by the respondents, the petitioners were awarded a contract of multi-storey parking for the year 2014-2015. The petitioners were entitled to charge the prescribed rates for parking at the District Administrative Complex, New Courts (DC Office), Ludhiana. Several complaints were received by the respondents from various quarters raising various grievances. The complaints, inter alia, were to the effect that the petitioners had been charging the parking fees in excess of what they were entitled to; had not got printed in the correct manner the rates of the vehicles on the tokens and that the employees of the petitioners had misbehaved with the public.

The petitioners had filed a civil suit to restrain the respondents from cancelling the contract. That suit was, however, dismissed for default. One of the complainants had filed an FIR under Sections 323, 341 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that he was beaten by the petitioners'' employees.

The petitioners had also filed CWP-26726-2014 challenging the termination of their contract to run the parking lot and the respondents'' action in blacklisting them. The petition was disposed of by an order and judgement dated 28.01.2015 by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party. The order noted some of the allegations against the petitioners such as that the receipt books seized indicate that the rates and time were left blank in order to enable the petitioners to recover the amount in excess of what they were entitled to. No reliefs were granted regarding the termination of the contract. However, the Division Bench interfered as regards the blacklisting of the petitioners by the letter dated 17.12.2014. The respondents were directed to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard with respect to the issue of blacklisting. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of being heard and the impugned order was passed blacklisting the petitioners for a period of ten years.

The order notes that there were multiple complaints against the petitioners and that the petitioners had been granted sufficient opportunities to improve their working style, but in vain. Receipts without complete and fair mention of the rates had earlier been confiscated by the respondents. There were multiple complaints and findings in this regard which brought out the wrong doing by the petitioners. The petitioners'' explanation was not accepted. It may only be noted that the decision was not taken on the basis of a single complaint or a few complaints, but on account of several complaints over a period of time.

The procedure for blacklisting had been duly followed at least after the order and judgement dated 28.01.2015. The decision making process cannot be faulted. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of blacklisting. However, we are inclined to interfere with the period of blacklisting, namely, ten years.

It is true that normally a Writ Court should not substitute the penalty meted out after a proper hearing. In our view, however, blacklisting a party for a period of ten years spells virtual doom to the party in a case such as this. There may be cases where an order of blacklisting for ten years is justified. However, in the present case, looking to the nature of the contract and the allegations, in our view, a period of three years would be sufficient.

In these circumstances, the petition is allowed only to the extent of curtailing the period of blacklisting to three years from the date of the impugned order dated 24.02.2015. In other words, the period of blacklisting will come to an end on 24.02.2018. The undertaking of the petitioners that in the event of being awarded similar contract in future, they would provide CCTV cameras at locations specified by the party inviting tenders entirely on their own cost is accepted. In other words, the costs of the CCTV cameras shall be in addition to the bid amount.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.