Duration Of Blacklisting Cannot Be Solely Per Offence: Supreme Court Disapproves Guidelines Framed By Odisha Govt.

Case: State of Odisha vs Panda Infraproject Limited

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: CA 1083 OF 2022

Court Observation: “In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor’s first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years.”

“After considering the allegations in the show cause notice, considering the reply and also by considering the material available on record the order of blacklisting was passed. We fail to appreciate, how in such a case the blacklisting order can be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice.”

“It is for the State or appropriate authority to pass an order of blacklisting/debarment in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the High Court has erred and has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by quashing and setting aside the blacklisting order, that too, without adverting to the serious allegations and the act of omission and commission on the part of the contractor which led to a serious incident of collapse of ten meter slab while concrete work of the deck was going on and due to which one person died and eleven others were injured. It was specifically found that the safety arrangements were lacking severely in the construction work zone. It was also found that quality assurance was not emphasised as stipulated in the codes and manuals and as per the Agreement. Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the seriousness of the incident in which due to omission and commission on the part of the contractor in constructing the flyover one person died and eleven others were injured.”

Previous Posts

Compassionate Appointment Policy Cannot Discriminate Against Illegitimate Children Of Deceased Employee: Supreme Court

Partition Suit- Plaintiff Not Disentitled to Seek Relief in Second Appeal Merely Because He Did Not File First Appeal against Denial of His Claims by Trial Court: Supreme Court

PC Act – Mere Acceptance of Amount, Without Proof of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence under Section 7: Supreme Court

Superannuation Does Not Absolve Employee From Misconduct; Bank Employee Always Holds Position Of Trust: Supreme Court

Specific Relief Act – Compensation In Lieu Of Specific Performance Can’t Be Granted Unless Specifically Claimed In Plaint: Supreme Court

Principle Of Equal Pay For Equal Work Cannot Be Applied Merely On Basis Of Designation: Supreme Court Download Judgement