TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arded in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 01.12.2015 to 30.11.2016. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner carried out the work under the contract for the scheduled period of one year and thereafter, without there being any request on the part of the petitioner for extension of the period of contract, the opposite party-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, vide order dated 19.12.2016, extended the contract period for a further period of 3 months with effect from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 or till finalization of new tender, whichever was earlier. The extension was on the same terms as per the agreement executed between the parties. 2. After the extension was accorded by the opposite party, on 20.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period of agreement was unilaterally extended by the opposite party, without there being any request for the same made by the petitioner. It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner dated 27.01.2017 and without assigning any reason, except for saying that there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the tender/agreement, and that salary to the security guards has not been paid for several months and certain irregularities found in Employees Provident Fund (EPF)/Employees' State Insurance (ESI) contribution. 4.1 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no specific violation of the terms and conditions of the tender/agreement has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty explained as to why the clarifications given in the reply were not convincing or unsatisfactory. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 would go to show that general allegations have been made against the petitioner, without specifying as to what violation has been committed by the petitioner. By having granted extension of the contract for a further period of three months (without even being asked for), there would be a presumption that the conduct and work of the petitioner was good and to the satisfaction of the opposite party. 7. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in response to the notice dated 20.01.2017, the reply dated 27.01.2017 was unsigned, and in the same breath it is stated that the clarifications made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor because blacklisting simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach. 9. However, even if it is accepted that the opposite party had the power/authority to blacklist the petitioner, but the same could have done after assigning valid reason for doing so in the impugned order, which ought to have been after considering the reply of the petitioner. A perusal of the reply dated 27.01.2017 would show that the petitioner had given response to all the queries raised by the opposite party in the show cause notice, but by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915, Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., 2017 (I) OLR 5; and Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625. 11. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 the apex Court held that keeping in view the expanding horizon of principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which governs exercise of power by administrative authorities. Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with exp....