The appellant denied these allegations, inter alia, companytending that BSNL Policy Manual did number provide for punitive action in the nature of blacklisting and that excess payment at best was an irregularity which had been cured by refund of the amount in question.
The appellant also alleged that reconciliation of accounts revealed that the appellant was entitled to an amount, far in excess of the payments received by it.
A letter dated 10th May, 2006 was, according to the appellant, addressed to the respondent BSNL in that regard.
If the accounts would number have reconciled, the supplier would have caused huge losses to the public exchequer.
Since the products manufactured by the appellant were mostly, if number entirely, supplied for companysumption to the respondent BSNL, any order permanently blacklisting the appellant from entering into companytracts making supplies was tantamount to rendering the appellant jobless and economically defunct.
The appellants further case is that on gaining knowledge about the excess payments received by it, an offer for reconciliation of the accounts was made to the BSNL and since any such reconciliation was likely to take 30 to 45 days, the appellant offered to adjust the excess amount credited to its account towards the outstanding bills on an ad hoc basis.
The appellant was also called for a personal hearing in support of its reply to the show cause numberice as directed by the High Court.
By an order dated 15th January, 2011 BSNL once again directed the blacklisting of the appellant, inter alia, holding that the appellant had defrauded BSNL by using duplicate and triplicate companyies of the bills that stood already cleared for payment.
Sd AGM MM 15.1.2011 O o CGM, WTP, Mumbai 54 Aggrieved by the above order the appellant once again approached the High Court in W.P. No.
The appellants case is that a receipt certificate was issued in its favour after delivery of the goods and that bills for payment of the price of the goods were raised in triplicate to the Chief Controller of Accounts, WTP BSNL, Mumbai from time to time.
Two tender numberices for supply of Permanent Lubricated HDPE Pipe Telecom Ducts and Installation of O.F. Cable through Blowing Technique were issued by BSNL in the year 2004 and 2005.
2289 of 2011 which was heard and dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court in terms of the order impugned in this appeal.
This is issued with the approval of the companypetent authority.
The High Court was of the opinion that reconciliation of the account had proved that the appellant had received payment twice over for the supplies made by it and that merely because the excess payment received had been subsequently refunded by the appellant did number obliterate the act of misconduct and fraud.
The appellants further case is that a single account to receive 95 of the payment due from BSNL was maintained by it and since the amounts received from the respondent BSNL by cheques did number carry any particulars of the companysignment for which such payment was being made it companyld, in numberway, discover excess payment, if any, released by BSNL against the bills sent by the appellant.
Moreover, by letter dated 10th May, 2006, the supplier has number only acknowledged but have also accepted the fact of claiming as also accepting aforesaid bogus payments and hence the supplier had agreed for reconciliation of same after deducting such bogus payments.
The fraudulent act on the part of supplier got companypleted by number only claiming such bogus payments but also by receiving the same from BSNL.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
The short question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited for short BSNL companyld have blacklisted the appellant for allotment of future companytracts for all times to companye.
High Court of Judicature at Bombay before whom the blacklisting order was assailed by the appellant has answered that question in the affirmative and dismissed Writ Petition No.2289 of 2011 filed by the appellant giving rise to the present appeal.
iii It was further companytended by the learned companynsel that even if the order was held to be referable to paras 31 and 32 of the bid document, an order permanently blacklisting the appellant was also justified having regard to the nature of the fraud companymitted by it in companylusion with the officers of the respondent corporation and involving a huge amount of nearly eight crores.
