Summary
A contractor was blacklisted after a flyover slab collapsed, killing one person and injuring eleven. The Court held that the preliminary decision to commence blacklisting after an inquiry did not establish predetermination: a specific show-cause notice and consideration of the detailed reply satisfied natural justice on these facts. It restored the blacklisting but reduced its permanent duration to five years from the original order, emphasising that duration must reflect the gravity of the lapse.
Issues
- Whether initiating blacklisting after an adverse inquiry established predetermination or denial of natural justice.
- Whether permanent blacklisting was proportionate.
- Whether a later three-year-per-offence guideline controlled the appropriate duration.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court erred in setting aside the blacklisting on the stated procedural grounds without appreciating the process followed and seriousness of the established lapses. (¶ 8.1-8.7)
Held
- A tentative decision based on an inquiry report may precede show-cause proceedings. The direction to proceed in accordance with the prescribed procedure was a proposed action, not proof that the eventual decision was predetermined. (¶ 8.1-8.2)
- The contractor received a detailed notice stating the allegations and proposed blacklisting, submitted a detailed reply, and the authority considered that reply and the record. On these facts, the procedure satisfied natural justice. (¶ 8.3-8.6)
- Debarment duration should reflect the gravity of the omissions, breaches and resulting incident. The Court disapproved fixing duration solely by the number of offences, but left the unchallenged later memorandum for the State to amend rather than striking it down. (¶ 9-9.1)
- The grave safety and workmanship failures warranted blacklisting despite this being a first offence. Permanent exclusion was too harsh; the appropriate period was five years from the original blacklisting order. (¶ 9.1-10)
- Civil Appeal 1083 of 2022 was partly allowed and the High Court’s quashing order set aside, subject to the five-year limit. In view of that disposition, Civil Appeal 1084 of 2022 was dismissed. There was no order as to costs. (¶ 10)
Result
Civil Appeal 1083 of 2022 partly allowed: blacklisting restored but restricted to five years from 12 December 2017. Civil Appeal 1084 of 2022 dismissed. No costs.