Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Rajdeep Electricals Private Limited vs Kandla Port Trust & 3 on 11 July, 2017

Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia

             C/SCA/20699/2016                                                                    JUDGMENT



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION  NO. 20699 of 2016

          
         For Approval and Signature: 
         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH                                                        Sd/­
         and
         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA                                                       Sd/­
         =============================================
         1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see                          No
                the judgment ?

         2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                          No

         3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the                         No
                judgment ?

         4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as                      No
                to   the   interpretation  of   the   Constitution  of   India  or   any 
                order made thereunder ?

         =============================================
                         RAJDEEP ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
                                              Versus
                              KANDLA PORT TRUST  &  3....Respondent(s)
         =============================================
         Appearance:
         MR PREMAL S RACHH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR   MIHIR   JOSHI,   SR.   ADVOCATE   with   MR   DHAVAL   D   VYAS,   ADVOCATE   for   the 
         Respondent(s) No. 1
         MR SAMIR AFZAL KHAN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
         NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­ 3
         =============================================
              CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
                     and
                     HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
          
                                             Date : 11/07/2017
          
                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

  (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution  of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs.

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate  Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 05:49:05 IST 2017 C/SCA/20699/2016 JUDGMENT writ,   order   or   direction,   quashing   and   setting   aside   the  impugned   action   on   the   part   of   respondent   authority   in  rejecting   e­tender   for   the   subject   work   submitted   by   the  petitioner   vide   communication   dtd.28.11.2016   and   not  opening the Price bid of the petitioner with regard to award of  subject work  ignoring  the  interim  stay  order  dtd.01.12.2016  passed   by   this   Hon'ble   Court   in   Special   Civil   Application  No.20109/2016 and further seeking to award tender work to  another   company,   as   being   illegal,   arbitrary,   unjust,  unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice as also  violative   of   Articles   14   and   19(1)(g)   of   the   Constitution   of  India;
(B) YOUR   LORDSHIPS   may   be   pleased   to   stay   the  implementation,   operation   and   execution   of   the   impugned  communication dtd.28.11.2016 (annexed at Annexure­A) and  further be pleased to direct respondent authority to open the  Price   Bid   of   the   petitioner   in   respect   of   Tender   Notice  No.EL/AC/2476 and after following due procedure, award the  tender   work  for   Upgradation  of   Barge  Handling   Facilities   at  Bunder   Basin,   Electrification   of   5   Hector   Area,   pending   the  admission,  hearing  and final  disposal of this  petition,  in the  interest of justice and equity;"

[2.0] At   the   outset   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   as   such   the  petitioner was awarded the contract by the Kandla Port Trust  for  operation and maintenance of electrical equipments in 66/11 KV  Sub­Station, 66 KV Switchyard and DG Set Inside Cargo Jetty Area  for   a   period   of   3   years.   That   by   an   order   dated  17.10.2016   the  Kandla Port  Trust terminated the contract invoking Clause 23 of  the general conditions of contract and also passed an order banning  /   blacklisting   the   petitioner   for   a   period   of   3   years   from  participating in tenders of Kandla Port Trust. The aforesaid decision  was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.20109/2016.  That   on   terminating   the   contract   the   respondent   No.1   -   Kandla  Port   Trust   issued   fresh   tender   notice   inviting   the   tender   for   the  subject   work   and   the   last   date   for   submission   of   e­tender   was  17.10.2016.   That   on   29.11.2016,   the   petitioner   preferred   the  Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 05:49:05 IST 2017 C/SCA/20699/2016 JUDGMENT aforesaid Special Civil Application No.20109/2016 challenging the  order   dated   17.10.2016   passed   by   the   respondent   No.3   thereby  terminating the contract awarded to the petitioner and banning the  petitioner for a period of 3 years from participating in tenders of  Kandla   Port   Trust.   That   as   vide   order   dated   17.10.2016,   the  petitioner   was   already   banned   for   a   period   of   3   years   from  participating   in   tenders   of   Kandla   Port   Trust,   vide   impugned  communication   dated   28.11.2016   (which   according   to   the  petitioner was received by it on 30.11.2016) rejected e­tender of  the petitioner for the subject work on the ground that the petitioner  is   already   banned  to  participate   in   Kandla   Port   Trust   tenders   as  pointed out in the order dated 17.10.2016. That thereafter in the  aforesaid   Special   Civil   Application   No.20109/2016,   the   Division  Bench of this Court granted ad­interim relief on 01.12.2016 staying  the order dated 17.10.2016 insofar as banning the petitioner. That  thereafter   the   petitioner   has   preferred   the   present   Special   Civil  Application   on   09.12.2016   challenging   the   impugned   decision  dated  28.11.2016  rejecting  the  e­tender  of the  petitioner for  the  subject work and in opening the price bid of the petitioner. 

[3.0] Shri Premal Rachh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of  the   petitioner   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the   impugned  decision   dated   28.11.2016   which   has   been   served   upon   the  petitioner   on   30.11.2016   is   absolutely   in   breach   of   the   interim  order   granted   by   this   Court   dated   01.12.2016   in   Special   Civil  Application No.20109/2016 by which the Division Bench granted  ad­interim stay of the order dated 17.10.2016 insofar as banning  the petitioner. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer (E) was  served with the said order dated 01.12.2016 on the very day i.e. on  01.12.2016 and despite the same and with a view to get out of the  stay   order   granted   by   this   Court   on   01.12.2016,   the   impugned  Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 05:49:05 IST 2017 C/SCA/20699/2016 JUDGMENT backdated   order   dated   28.11.2016   has   been   passed.   That   the  present   petition   has   been   preferred   with   the   aforesaid   prayers  solely on the ground that the communication dated 28.11.2016 is  backdated and said decision has been taken only with a view to get  out   of   the   interim   stay   granted   by   this   Court   on   01.12.2016   in  Special Civil Application No.20109/2016. 

[4.0] Present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Joshi, learned  Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent.   An   affidavit   in  reply is filed denying the allegation that the communication dated  28.11.2016 was backdated and that the same was issued only after  the   Executive   Engineer   (E)   was   served   with   the   stay   order   on  01.12.2016. It is submitted that communication dated 28.11.2016  was   already   sent   to   the   petitioner   through   email   on   29.11.2016  itself.   It  is   submitted  that   the   copy   of  the  same  was  sent  to  the  petitioner by post also which has been received by the petitioner on  30.11.2016. It is submitted that therefore the same cannot be said  to be with a view to get out of the ad­interim stay granted by this  Court on 01.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No.20109/2016. 

[4.1] It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Joshi,   learned   Advocate  appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   that   by   order   dated  17.10.2016   the   petitioner   was   already   banned   /   debarred   for   a  period of 3 years from participating in any of the contract with the  Kandla   Port   Trust   and   the   contract   was   canceled   and   therefore,  when the fresh tenders were invited for the subject work and the  petitioner   was   already   debarred   for   a   period   of   3   years   vide  communication   dated   28.11.2016,   e­tender   of   the   petitioner   is  rightly   not   accepted   and   the   bid   of   the   petitioner   is   not   rightly  opened. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 





                                                Page 4 of 6

HC-NIC                                       Page 4 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 13 05:49:05 IST 2017
           C/SCA/20699/2016                                                                  JUDGMENT




[5.0] Heard   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   respective   parties   at  length. 

At the outset it is required to be noted that vide order dated  17.10.2016   as   such   the   contract   which   was   awarded   to   the  petitioner   has   been   canceled   and   the   petitioner   is   debarred   /  banned  for   a   period   of   3   years   from   participating   in   any   of  the  contract   with   the   Kandla   Port   Trust.   Therefore,   the   Kandla   Port  Trust   was   required   to   issue   tender   and   accordingly   the   fresh  tenders   came   to   be   issued.   Despite   the   fact   that   though   the  petitioner was banned for a period of 3 years, the petitioner again  submitted   the   tender   which   came   to   be   rejected   vide  communication   dated   28.11.2016   i.e.   much   prior   to   the   interim  stay   granted   by   this   Court   on   01.12.2016   in   Special   Civil  Application   No.20109/2016.   Therefore,   as   such   when   the  petitioner   communicated   vide   communication   dated   28.11.2016,  that its bid is not required to be opened as the petitioner is already  banned, there was no stay order granted by this Court. Under the  circumstances,   the   impugned   communication   dated   28.11.2016  cannot be said to be in anyway illegal and/or with a view to get ouf  of   the   ad­interim   stay   granted   by   this   Court   on   01.12.2016   in  Special Civil Application No.20109/2016, as alleged. 

[5.1] Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that  the   communication   dated   28.11.2016   is   backdated   and   the  allegation on behalf of the petitioner that after the said order was  served upon the Executive Engineer (E), thereafter with a view to  get out of the ad­interim stay of staying the order of debarring is  concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the petitioner was  served   the   communication   dated   28.11.2016   through   email   on  29.11.2016 itself and even through post on 30.11.2016. Therefore,  the aforesaid allegation has no substance. 



                                               Page 5 of 6

HC-NIC                                      Page 5 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 13 05:49:05 IST 2017
           C/SCA/20699/2016                                                              JUDGMENT




[5.2] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the  impugned communication dated 28.11.2016 cannot be said to be in  anyway illegal and/or arbitrary and/or to get out of the ad­interim  stay   granted   by   this   Court   on   01.12.2016   in   Special   Civil  Application No.20109/2016, as alleged. 

[6.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present  Special   Civil   Application   fails   and   the   same   deserves   to   be  dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.  Ad­interim relief, if any,  stands vacated forthwith. No costs.  

Sd/­              (M.R. SHAH, J.)  Sd/­           (B.N. KARIA, J.)  Ajay Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 05:49:05 IST 2017