IN WPO 742 OF 2023- CALC HC- Blacklisting petitioner from participating in future tenders for any work of Airport Authority of India was palpably de hors the law and principles of natural justice, opines Calcutta High Court since no opportunity of just hearing provided to petitioner
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya [13-06-2023]

Read More: Pranab Bose  v.  Union Of India

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 20, 2023: The Calcutta High Court has allowed the challenge to the impugned communication dated 14.03.2023 whereby the respondent authority virtually blacklisted the petitioner by debarring him from participating in future tenders for any work of the Airport Authority of India (AAI) in any name and style for a period of 1 year with effect from the date of the issue of the said order.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya noted that no objection or cause shown by the petitioner was even considered at any point in time by the respondent authorities, thus, holding that the blacklisting was patently unilateral. It was further stated that the petitioner was also justified in arguing that, within the broad compass of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, an injustice which affected  a citizen of the country, perpetrated wherever within the territory of India, justified interference by any of the High Courts of the country which exercise concurrent jurisdiction to such extent.

It was the case of the petitioner that no hearing was given to him prior to the impugned decision being taken, which was the very antithesis of the principle of natural justice, Audi Alteram Partem. The petitioner relied upon Eldyne Electro Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India where, in a similar matter, the Division Bench was pleased, inter alia, to observe that the petitioner had alleged that the impugned order of temporary delisting, affecting its legal right and having an adverse effect on its business, was served to it at its registered office in Kolkata and as such a part of the cause of action had arisen within the limits of this Court, where the order of delisting had taken effect.

The respondents sought to highlight that the nature of the job demanded the highest standards since the same affects the safety and security of millions of people who travel by air. Even without denying such a proposition, the same could not be a stimulus per se to blacklist a particular concern without giving it an effective hearing and considering its objection/show cause.

The Court was of the view that the impugned decision of blacklisting the petitioner was palpably de hors the law and the principles of natural justice which was without authority. The Court accordingly setting aside the impugned blacklisting of the petitioner dated 14.03.2023.21.