Rajasthan High Court
Sawhney Electricals Works vs Rajasthan State Industrial ... on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1819/2022
Sawhney Electricals Works, 192/168, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,
Jaipur Through Its Proprietor Devi Singh Shekhawat, Son Of Shri
Bahadur Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 192/168,
Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corpporation Ltd, Chairman Cum Additional Chief
Secretary, Govt Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corpporation Ltd, Udhyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
3. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Industrial Development
And Investment Corpporation Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
4. Deputy Managing Director (Ii), Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corpporation Ltd, Udhyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
5. Superintending Engineer (Power-I), Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Corpporation Ltd,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
6. Executive Engineer (Power-I), Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corpporation Ltd, Udhyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
7. Shri Kuldeep Singh, Assistant Engineer (Power-),
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corpporation Ltd, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur
8. Unit Head Cum Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Corpporation Ltd,
Mewar Industrial Area, Road No 2, Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. counsel
assisted by Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Adv.
(2 of 4) [CW-1819/2022]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
11/02/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and this
Hon'ble Court pleased to call for the entire
record of the case and;
(a) by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
the order dated 20.01.2022 (Annx-14)
passed by the respondent No.5 be set
aside and;
(b) by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
the work order dated 10.11.2021 (Annx-3)
be restored to the petitioner and the
petitioner be allowed to continue the work
and;
(c) by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
the e-tender notice dated 27.01.2022
(Annx-17) be cancelled and;
(d) by issuance of appropriate writ, order
or direction if any pre-judicial order is
passed during the pendency of the writ
petition then same may also be set aside
and;
(e) Any other writ order or direction which
may be deemed proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be
issued in favour of petitioner."
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 20.01.2022 whereby the respondents have cancelled
the tender of the petitioner and further debarred the petitioner
from participating in the future tender process for a period of
three years.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that action of the
respondents in cancelling the tender as well as debarring the
petitioner from participating in the future tender process is
(3 of 4) [CW-1819/2022]
arbitrary in nature. Counsel further submits that prior to passing
of the order dated 20.01.2022, no show cause notice has been
given by the respondents debarring the petitioner from
participating in future tender process.
In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of
India & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 where in para 21 it
has been held as under:-
"Thus, from the above discussion, a
clear legal position emerges that for a
show cause notice to constitute the valid
basis of a blacklisting order, such notice
must spell out clearly, or its contents be
such that it can be clearly inferred
therefrom, that there is intention on the
part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist
the noticee. Such a clear notice is essential
for ensuring that the person against whom
the penalty of blacklisting is intended to be
imposed, has an adequate, informed and
meaningful opportunity to show cause
against his possible blacklisting."
Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents submitted that against the order dated
20.01.2022, the petitioner is having the alternative statutory
remedy of appeal before the M.D. RIICO.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
So far as the cancellation of tender of the petitioner vide
order dated 20.01.2022 is concerned, I am not inclined to
entertain the present petition as the petitioner is having
alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the departmental
authorities under Section 38 of the R.T.P.P. Act, but so far as
debarring the petitioner from participating in the future tender
process for a period of three years is concerned, in my considered
(4 of 4) [CW-1819/2022]
view, the same has been passed by the respondents without
assigning any specific reason, therefore in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UMC Technologies
Private Limited (supra) that part of the order dated 20.01.2022
debarring the petitioner deserves to be set aside.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed.
The order passed by the respondents dated 20.01.2022, so far as
it relates to debarring the petitioner from participating in the
future tender process for a period of three years, is set aside.
However, the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order in this
regard after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Jyoti/159
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
