Court Finds Legal Malice and Colourable Exercise of Power in Authorities’ Actions Against Petitioner
In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the repeated debarment and blacklisting of M/s Satish Chandra Dixit, a contractor, by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its associated authorities. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan.
The case revolved around allegations of legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power by the authorities in repeatedly debarment and blacklisting the petitioner. The court found that the authorities failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice and directions previously issued by the court, leading to undue harassment of the petitioner.
The petitioner, M/s Satish Chandra Dixit, was initially debarred following a tender process for the construction of a minor bridge. The tender was awarded to a competing firm, M/S A.M. Builders, following a complaint against the petitioner. Despite several legal challenges by the petitioner, the authorities continued to blacklist and debar him on technical grounds, which the court found to be whimsical and arbitrary.
The court noted that the actions of the authorities demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the rights of the petitioner and an abuse of power. It emphasized that the debarment proceedings were initiated without valid reasons and became oppressive over time. The judges highlighted that the authorities did not provide complete information to the petitioner, nor did they consider his comprehensive replies before passing orders of debarment.
In its judgment, the court referred to the doctrine of colourable exercise of power, explaining that actions motivated by personal bias or ulterior purposes are improper and illegal. The judges declined to remand the matter back to the authorities, citing the futility of perpetuating an illegality. Instead, they granted relief to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order of debarment.
The court also criticized the authorities for failing to take action against officials who were found guilty in a Lokayukta inquiry for irregularities in the tender process. The judgment is seen as a significant step in upholding the fundamental right to practice a profession, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and preventing the abuse of administrative power. It serves as a reminder that legal remedies should be efficient and effective, ensuring justice is served without unnecessary delay.
Bottom Line:
Legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power were evident in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, leading to repeated debarment and blacklisting orders. The authorities failed to adhere to principles of natural justice and directions of the Court, causing undue harassment to the petitioner.
Statutory provision(s): Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, U.P. Lokayukta and Up Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1975
M/s. Satish Chandra Dixit v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2870628
