Shree People Trading Corporation vs Gujarat State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 27 Guj

 C/SCA/9629/2018                                CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9629 of 2018

=============================================

SHREE PEOPLE TRADING CORPORATION Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ============================================= Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

Date : 02/01/2023

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI)

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the

impugned order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the respondent

authority and has sought for consequential relief of

directing the respondent Corporation not to issue any such

communication restricting entry of petitioner so as to stall

his legitimate claim with the office of the respondent -

Corporation.

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

2. The background of facts which have given rise to the

present proceedings is that petitioner - firm is engaged in

the business of supplying plywood, locks, handle, door and

aluminum sections since last number of years and is a

reputed firm of Ahmedabad. A tender came to be floated by

the respondent - Corporation for supply of aluminum

section and in the said tender process, petitioner - firm

participated and having been found eligible, tender came to

be accepted namely, Tender No. 5 STG/PUR/JN-1/C-55/St-B/

2014-15 and work was awarded to the petitioner. Hence,

petitioner is said to have supplied necessary material. The

lab testing was also undertaken with regard to the samples

which were supplied by the petitioner and according to the

terms and conditions of the contract, petitioner - firm has

supplied the material. But on account of some unforeseen

circumstances, according to the petitioner, a show cause

notice came to be issued on 29.11.2016 stating thereunder,

that goods supplied by the petitioner was not in order and

as such, called upon petitioner to show cause as to why

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

contract shall not be cancelled. Said notice was duly replied

to by the petitioner through its advocate on 15.12.2016

inter alia contending that necessary material as per the

terms and conditions have been supplied and the

allegations which have been levelled in the show cause

notice are far from truth. It has been pointed out that

petitioner - firm is dealing with the Corporation since

number of years, but on account of some business rivalry

and other disputes, petitioner is sought to be targeted. It is

contended, once again, on 13.02.2017, another notice came

to be issued for this very reason calling upon the petitioner

to remain present on 18.02.2017 and vide further show

cause notice dated 27.02.2017 petitioner was called upon to

remain present on 06.03.2017. The respondent Corporation

according to the petitioner passed an order on 26.04.2017

under which, it has been ordered that no business

transaction with the firm of the petitioner is to be effected

for a period from 26.04.2017 to 25.10.2017. According to

petitioner, a further order also came to be passed on the

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

basis of very same material and by virtue of this second

order dated 05.10.2017, petitioner - firm has been

blacklisted for a period of five years i.e. 26.10.2017 to

25.10.2022.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that order passed by the

respondent authority of blacklisting petitioner for a period

of five years is absolutely without application of mind;

without following any procedure established by law; and,

impugned order is cryptic which has constrained the

petitioner to approach this Court by way of Special Civil

Application 20972 of 2017. The said petition was contested

by the respondent authority by filing reply and later on

petition was heard at length and prima facie reply affidavit

was in favour of the petitioner and at that stage, the

respondent authority came out with a statement that they

are withdrawing the order impugned in the said Special

Civil Application 20972 of 2017 and would give an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner afresh and based

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

upon such submission, the order of blacklisting was

withdrawn and petition came to be disposed of with a rider

as contained in order dated 19.02.2018.

2.2. The grievance of the petitioner that though statement

was made before the Division Bench about withdrawal of

order of blacklisting, no communication to that effect has

been issued till date and once again a show cause notice

was issued by the respondent authority on 17.03.2018

stated thereunder that respondent - Corporation is

intending to initiate proceedings afresh, without any

documents being made available to the petitioner.

Petitioner is said to have made a request to the respondent

authority by forwarding a notice on 26.03.2018. The

grievance of the petitioner was also voiced out about non

supply of the order of withdrawal as indicated above, and

petitioner's representative was not even permitted to enter

the premises of the Corporation and as such, petitioner is

said to have requested the respondent to provide

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

documents and allow the petitioner to enter the premises of

respondent. But despite reminders having been sent on

28.03.2018 and repeated representations made, no

attention has been paid by respondent. Later on, when

insisted by petitioner, respondent authority called upon

petitioner to remain present on 02.04.2018, intending to

handover relevant documents. Petitioner had remained

present on 31.03.2018 as well as on 02.04.2018, and

neither documents were furnished nor hearing was

extended to petitioner and as such, petitioner is said to

have requested respondent to supply documents. It is upon

such persistent request made by petitioner on 02.04.2018,

certain documents were said to have been made available to

the petitioner and rojkam was also drawn on 02.04.2018

and on preparation of said rojkam on their own, petitioner

was informed by respondent that Corporation would

intimate the next date of hearing and thereafter

surprisingly, on 06.04.2018 namely, within a period of three

days from the date of furnishing documents, impugned

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

order came to be passed against the petitioner whereby for

a period of five years, petitioner was declared as

disqualified to deal with the Corporation in respect of all

contracts and it is this order which has been passed by the

respondent authority which is subject matter of present

petition.

3. The petition was entertained by this Court by issuance

of notice to respondent vide order dated 25.07.2018 and

subsequently, after completion of pleadings it has come up

for consideration after four (4) years.

4. Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner though has raised multiple contentions in the

petition, has fairly submitted before the Court that period of

five years of disqualification imposed upon petitioner by

impugned order dated 06.04.2018 has lapsed and as such,

practically cause does not survive. However, he has

seriously voiced out an apprehension that Corporation will

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

use this order against petitioner, if not set aside, in future

contracts namely for the purposes of not considering the

tender that may be submitted by the petitioner in the event

of Corporation floating any further tender/s and as such he

has requested that if that part of the impugned order is

clarified, he would not have much grievance to redress to

agitate since period of five years is already over on October,

2022. Hence, without much resistance or raising any

further grievance with regard to the impugned order, a

request is made to dispose of the petition by making

observation as prayed for and it would array the

apprehension of the petitioner.

5. As against this, Mr. Hardik Raval, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent - authority has submitted that

order impugned was passed by the respondent authority

after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and after

considering the relevant material as indicated in the order

itself and as such, impugned order cannot be said to be

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

suffering from any infirmity. Further Mr. Raval, has

submitted that if apprehension as voiced out by the

petitioner about future participation of petitioner in any

tender/s that may be floated by the respondent -

Corporation, this Court may pass such orders as it deems

proper since main prayer sought for in the petition has

become infructuous as the order itself has got spent itself.

Hence, requested the Court to pass suitable orders in the

interest of justice.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and having gone through the material on

record, including the impugned order, we have noticed that

impugned order has been passed by the respondent

authority after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

Since this Court is not called upon by petitioner to examine

its validity at length in view of lapse of time of five years

debarment period imposed under impugned order, we

desist from observing anything on merits, considering the

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

request of the learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner.

6.1. From perusal of the impugned order dated 06.04.2018,

we have noticed that petitioner has been esttoped from

dealing with the Corporation in any kind of business

transaction for a period of five years' and said five years

period undisputedly has already come to an end in October,

2022 itself. The period of debarment having lapsed,

challenge laid to said order does not survive for any further

consideration. Even respondent Corporation has also stated

that no such eventuality so far has arisen which can be

apprehended about petitioner's bid not being considered in

future. Hence, considering the peculiar background of facts

which are prevailing on record and in view of the facts of

earlier proceedings having been gone through to some

extent, namely petitioner was aggrieved by in-action of the

respondent authority in non-supply of necessary material.

However, the fact that undisputedly, petitioner appears to

C/SCA/9629/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/01/2023

have dealt with the Corporation since many years and in

view of the peculiar nature of cause, we deem it proper to

dispose of the petition by observing that since we have not

gone into the merits of the impugned order and the petition

is disposed of on account of lapse of time about period

having been lapsed of such disqualification. This disposal

will not come in the way of the petitioner dealing in future

with the respondent in respect of any tender that may be

floated by the respondent Corporation.

7. Subject to above observation, we dispose of the

present petition as having become infructuous. Rule stands

discharged. No order as to costs.

(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni