2017 (8) TMI 796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....). 2. The petitioner had submitted its bid pursuant to a notice inviting tender dated 09.09.2010 issued by the respondent for providing data entry operators and peons. The petitioner's bid was accepted and it was awarded the contract for providing 50 data entry operators and 14 peons by the respondent on 22.11.2010. The said contract was extended from time to time and finally concluded on 29.02.2012. 3. In terms of the contract, the petitioner was responsible for complying with all statutory requirements and payment of all statutory dues including the payment of dues of EPF, ESI and service tax. 4. It is stated that the petitioner deposited the service tax dues, however, was not regular in depositing the EPF dues of the employees. Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned counsel for the respondent has countered the aforesaid submissions. At the outset, he has stated that the petitioner had committed default and such default would invite orders as passed by the respondent. He also submitted that this was an open and shut case where an incorrect undertaking had been submitted by the petitioner. He also disputed the contention that no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. He referred to the letter dated 30.04.2013 and submitted that the allegations on the basis of which the impugned order was passed were stated in the said letter. 10. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the first and foremost question to be examined is whether the respondent had issued a show cause notice as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r such action is warranted has to be considered on the anvil of several factors. In Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors: (2014) 14 SCC 731, the Supreme Court summarised the parameters required to be borne in mind by an authority while considering the question of blacklisting a party, which are as follows:- "The guidelines also stipulate the factors that may influence the debarring official's decision which include the following: (a) The actual or potential harm or impact that results or may result from the wrongdoing. (b) The frequency of incidents and/or duration of the wrongdoing. (c) Whether there is a pattern or prior history of wrongdoing. (d) Whether the contractor has been exclu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lity is also required to be considered while considering the question of blacklisting. This aspect has also been considered by this Court in M/s Avinash EM Projects Private Ltd. v. M/s GAIL (India) Ltd.: 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7135. 13. In Gorkha Security Services (supra), the Supreme Court has summarily stated that mere issuance of show cause notice would not be sufficient and it would be necessary that the party against whom the order of blacklisting is contemplated, be specifically put to notice regarding the proposed action to blacklist the said party. The relevant extract of the decision is as under:- "19. The Central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose....