Kerala High Court
Imperial Systems vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 30 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SATURDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 8TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 31967 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
IMPERIAL SYSTEMS
ADOOR TOWERS, CENTRAL ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR, ZAREENA SHAMSUDEEN,
W/O. SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 43 YEARS,EMBRAYIL HOUSE,
PAZHAKULAM P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691523
BY ADVS.
B.VINOD
I.V.PRAMOD
SAIRA SOURAJ P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
HARISH CHANDRA MATHUR LANE, JANPATH,
NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 110001
2 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL,
KERALA CIRCLE, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM
THRISSUR, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, PIN - 680022
4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(PLANNING)
O/O THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, THRISSUR
KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, PIN - 680022
SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31967 OF 2023 2
JUDGMENT
The singular plea of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 order,
forfeiting their deposits for Performance Security and with a
consequential order of ban - is illegal and unlawful, since they have
not given three "warning letters", as is statutorily and contractually
mandated.
2. The petitioner, through their learned counsel - Sri.B.Vinod,
added that all consequential action, pursuant to the decision taken by
the respondents in Ext.P6, to proceed against them, in spite of three
"warning letters" having not been issued, is illegal and unlawful; and
therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
3. Interestingly, Sri.Mathews K.Philip - learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents, submitted that Ext.P6 must be
construed to be the third "warning letter"; and therefore, prayed that
it be not interdicted. However, to a pointed question from this Court,
he conceded that, apart from Ext.P6, only two other warnings were
given to the petitioner.
4. When I evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable
that, when it is statutorily and contractually mandated that three
warnings should be given - which fact is not contested by the
respondents either - same ought to have been scrupulously complied
with, before Ext.P6 - which is an order imposing detriment - could
have been issued against the petitioner.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set
aside Ext.P6; however, reserving full liberty to the respondents to act
against the petitioner in terms of law and in full compliance of all
applicable Regulations and Rules.
I make it clear that none of my observations in this judgment
will be a fetter to such powers.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/30.9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31967/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF TENDER
NO: PGL/TCR/EXTERNAL MTCE
OUTSOURCING/RETENDER/CBU/2022-23/ 10 DATED
18.05.22
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO:
IMP/EPM-TCR/009/06/22DATED 16/6/2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
TENDER NO: PLG /TCR/EXTL PLANT MTCE OUT
SOURCING /RE-TENDER PKM/2021-22/ 15 DATED
21/07/2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST WARMING LETTER
NO. AGM PLG/TCR/TENDER GENL CORR./2022-
2023/30 DATED 22/04/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND WARNING LETTER
NOAGM PLC/TCR/TENDER GENL CORR./2022-
2023/34 DATED 01/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE
NO.AGM PLG/TCR/TENDERGENL CORR./2022-
2023/41 DATED 16/6/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE PETITIONER
NO: IMP/EPM-DGM-OPTOR/ 002/09/22 DATED
15/9/2022
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE PETITIONER
NO: IMP/EPMTCR/ 012/06/23 DATED 8/6/2023
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER WO/EPBT/TRIASSUR
RURAL DIVISION/2023-24/09 DATED 21/6/2023
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO: IMP/EPM-DGM-OP-
TCR/001 /03/23 DATED 23/3/2023
