Delhi High Court
Tema India Limited vs Engineers India Limited And Anr on 10 March, 2017
$~88
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2017
W.P.(C) 2259/2017
TEMA INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhil Sibal with Mr. Salim Inamdar, Mr. Hasan
Murtaza and Mr. Nikhil Chawla, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Anuradha Mukherjee,
Ms. Mekhla Anand, Ms. Shreya Som and Ms. Mimansa
Ambastha, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 10.03.2017
W.P.(C) 2259/2017 & CM No.9778/2017 (for interim relief)
1. The petitioner seeks quashing/setting aside of the action of the
respondents placing the petitioner in the Holiday List and to re-induct
the petitioner in the Approved Vendor List and, consequently, to
consider the petitioner's bid for the Notice Inviting Tender for
WP(C) 2259/2017
upgradation of the existing 10.5 MMTPA Manali Refinery at
Chennai.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
allegedly put on a holiday as far back as in the year 2009 and the
reasons for the same have till date not been communicated despite the
fact that the petitioner has been representing against the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
Procedure for Suspension/Banning of Business Dealings, issued by
the respondents, as applicable w.e.f. 12.05.2016, the maximum period
for which a vender can be banned is three years in terms of Annexure-
1, thereto.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maximum
period of three years is already over. Several representations have
been given to the respondents to put the petitioner back on the Vendor
List. But to no avail.
5. Learned ASG appearing for the respondents submits that the
Procedure for Suspension/Banning of Business Dealings is applicable
only w.e.f 12.05.2016 and is not applicable in the case of the
petitioner, since, the petitioner was put on a holiday in the year 2009.
WP(C) 2259/2017
6. However, he, under instructions, submits that the respondents
are willing to reinstate the petitioner on the approved Vender List
provided the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria for the same as
of date.
7. Learned ASG submits that for the purposes of deciding whether
the petitioner satisfies the criteria or not, an inspection and assessment
of the manufacturing facility of the petitioner at Mumbai would be
necessary.
8. In view of the above, the order putting the petitioner on the
Holiday List is quashed.
9. The respondents are permitted to carry out a physical
audit/assessment of the manufacturing facility of the petitioner at
Mumbai. As agreed to by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
physical inspection would be carried out on 14.03.2017, and if
required, the same may continue on 15.03.2017.
10. In case, there is any deficiency, the respondents shall intimate
the petitioner by 20.03.2017 and further requiring the petitioner to
rectify or correct the same and/or represent against the same within a
period of 7 days thereafter. The final decision whether the petitioner
can be put on the approved Vendor List or not would be
communicated to the petitioner by 31.03.2017.
WP(C) 2259/2017
11. Learned ASG appearing for the respondents further submits
that the date of submission of the bids for the Tender for upgradation
of the existing 10.5 MMTPA Manali Refinery at Chennai shall be
deferred to 17.04.2017. The statement is taken on record.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. It is clarified
that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents
with regard to putting the petitioner on the vendor list, the petitioner
shall be at liberty to take such remedies as may be available in law.
13. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 10, 2017
st
WP(C) 2259/2017
