Uttarakhand High Court
Ms Rajesh Kumar Sanjay Gupta vs Union Of India And Others on 22 March, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 743 of 2016 (M/S)
M/s Rajesh Kumar Sanjay Gupta ....... Petitioner
versus
Union of India & others ....... Respondents
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Standing Counsel for Union of India / respondent no. 1 to 5.
U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner firm seeks writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the incriminating remarks against the petitioner firm in the impugned list dated 10.03.2016 (contained as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).
2) Annexure no. 1 contains work load return for contractor 'S' & 'A' to 'D' & U/E contractor having work load over Rs. 50.00 lakhs in hand and list of contractors without work load to whom tenders are not to be issued, circulated under the signatures of Director (Contracts) on behalf of Chief Engineer, Headquarters, Central Command, Lucknow. Annexure no. 1 also contains a list Part I-B containing list of 65 contractors, who were not considered suitable for taking further workload as per remarks given therein. Name of petitioner firm figures at serial no. 21 of the said list, relevant portion of which is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:
Sl. Name of Firm Index Value of work in Value of Whether no. no. hand (Rs in laksh) work capable to completed handle more (Rs. in lakhs) load 21 M/s Rajesh Kumar B-130 329.14 197.48 No, slow Sanjay Gupta progress 2
3) Annexure no. 1 stipulates a condition that "if any firm amongst this list had approached court against the remarks and has obtained the stay order / orders in their favour for issue tender then firm may be considered for issue of tender and facts intimated to this Head Quarter to avoid contempt of courts orders."
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner firm vehemently argued that the petitioner firm can handle more load and incriminating remarks made in Annexure no. 1 against the name of said firm are wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner firm contended that whereas the respondents alleged that the petitioner firm has not completed the work, the reply of the petitioner firm is that they have completed the work, due to which dispute arose between them and, therefore, an application, being Arbitration Application no. 50 of 2015, titled as M/s Rajesh Kumar Sanjay Gupta, Military Engineering Services vs Chief Engineer Bareilly Zone, for appointment for Arbitrator in said case, is pending consideration before this Court. No show cause notice was given to the petitioner firm and without such show cause notice incriminating remarks have been given to the petitioner firm. The license of the petitioner firm was renewed upto 2020 by the same department.
5) In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage by directing the 3 petitioner firm to make a representation to respondent no. 2, who in turn, will decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, at the earliest possible, but not later than four weeks' of presentation of certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the representation containing all the reasons to show that incriminating remarks have wrongly been given to the petitioner firm. Since the bidding will start from 26.03.2016 onwards for the upcoming tenders, therefore, it is provided that the petitioner firm shall be permitted to participate in the tender process as if no incriminating remarks have been given to it, which will be subject to the final outcome of the representation to be decided by respondent no. 2.
6) Let copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.
7) Stay application no. 2601 of 2016 also stands disposed of.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) Dt. March 22, 2016.
Negi