Rajasthan High Court
Ms Raipaloth Labour Supply Agency vs Kota Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd ... on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8829/2018
M/s Raipaloth Labour Supply Agency, 194, Rawatbhata Road, In
Front Of Rac Groud, Shivpura, Kota, a proprietorship concern
through its Proprietor Mool Singh Rathore son of Hem Singh, age
51 years, PIN 324010.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kota Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited,
Akelgarh, Rawatbhata Road, Kota, Pin 324010 Through
2. Managing Director, Kota Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari
Sangh Limited, Akelgarh, Rawatbhata Road, Kota, Pin
324010
3. Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Ajmer
through its Managing Director.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ram Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anita Agrawal, Adv. (Through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
15/07/2021
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner initially
challenging the order dated 24/27 th March, 2018 issued by the
respondent Kota Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited,
Kota, whereby the tender issued in favour of the petitioner to
supply manpower, was cancelled and fresh tenders were to be
invited for the same job.
(2 of 4) [CW-8829/2018]
This Court initially at the time of admission of the writ
petition, passed an interim order on 25th April, 2018 to the extent
of not allotting the concerned work to any other person.
The interim order passed by this Court continued in force till
this Court clarified on 16th March, 2021 that original period of
tender notice was one year and that itself came to an end in 2019,
however, the petitioner due to interim order, worked for more than
two and half years.
This Court clarified vide order dated 16th March, 2021 that
the interim order passed by this Court was not to come in way of
Kota Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Kota, if they
intend to invite fresh tenders.
This Court on the same date i.e. 16 th March, 2021, clarified
that as far as order dated 7th December, 2012 passed by the
Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Ajmer, was
concerned, the validity of the same was required to be considered
by this Court as the petitioner-firm was blacklisted for indefinite
period.
The matter comes up today on the second stay application,
however, this Court with the consent of the parties, deems it
proper to dispose of the matter finally.
This Court finds that as far as grievance against the order
dated 24/27th March, 2018 issued by the respondent Kota Zila
Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Kota is concerned, the
same does not require any adjudication from this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as
the order dated 7th December, 2012 passed by the Ajmer Zila
Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Ajmer cancelling the
tender issued in favour of the petitioner on 3 rd December, 2012, is
(3 of 4) [CW-8829/2018]
concerned, the same order not only cancelled the tender awarded
in favour of the petitioner but also blacklisted the petitioner-firm
from participating in any tender process in the Ajmer Zila Dugdh
Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Ajmer.
Learned counsel submitted that blacklisting of the petitioner-
firm without giving any show cause notice and further for an
indefinite period, is not legally sustainable in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9417/2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.4074/2018
(M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of
U.P. & Anr.).
Learned counsel further places reliance on a judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Nectar Lifesciences
Ltd. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.24030/2016] dated 19th January, 2018.
This Court finds that the Apex Court as well as this Court has
time and again laid down the law that before blacklisting of any
person/firm, the Competent Authority is required to give a show
cause notice specifying the reasons for blacklisting the firm and
only after seeking explanation, the Competent Authority can pass
necessary order of blacklisting the firm.
This Court further finds that blacklisting of the firm cannot be
for an indefinite period and the impugned order dated 7 th
December, 2012 clearly shows that the petitioner-firm has been
blacklisted for all times to come, to participate in the tender
process and the same order cannot be said in consonance with the
law laid down by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the
legal position.
(4 of 4) [CW-8829/2018]
In view of the settled law, this Court finds that the impugned
order dated 7th December, 2012 to the extent of blacklisting the
petitioner for future/indefinite period, is not a legal & valid order.
This Court finds that the order dated 7th December, 2012, to
the extent of blacklisting the petitioner is required to be set aside
to that extent and accordingly the same is set aside and the
condition, which has been imposed of blacklisting the petitioner for
all times to come in future is set aside.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of, in
above terms.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Monika/Parul/36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
