Rajasthan High Court
M/S Time Technoplast Ltd vs Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure ... on 7 January, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21083/2019
M/s Time Technoplast Ltd., A Public Limited Company, Having
Registered Office At 102, First Floor, Center Point, Somnath-
Daman Road, Somnath, Dabhej, Nani Daman, Daman (Ut)-
396210 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ashok Kumar
Verma, Deputy General Manager, Marketing, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (R.u.i.d.p.),
Avs Building, Jawahar Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Project
Director.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat
through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
07/01/2022
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
order dated 13.11.2018 passed by respondent RUIDP, whereby in
ex-parte manner, the petitioner company has been debarred/
banned/ disqualified from supplying high density Polythylene
(HDPE) pipes manufactured by the petitioner company. No time
limit has been fixed by the respondent and the ban is for unlimited
period as a blanket ban, resulting in permanently debarring the
company from supplying HDPE pipes manufactured by it.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner company is a Public Ltd
company and approved by Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS). It is further
submitted that the products manufactured by the petitioner company
(2 of 4) [CW-21083/2019]
are being used by over 200 companies of India and some of the Asian
Companies ever since 1992.
3. The submission of petitioner company is that one contract was
entered with Larsen and Turbo, wherein, HDPE pipes were required for
length of about 3.21 Km. They were approved suppliers to Larsen and
Turbo. They have made requisite inspection. Third party inspection was
also carried in addition to L&T. Pipes were supplied in the year 2016 and
they remained in open, therefore, there were some cracks and they
were not met with the required specification.
4. Per contra, counsel for the RUIDP submits that the proceedings
were carried out with due process of law, expert team has conducted
audit, samples of pipes were sent to the third party expert laboratory
who has given a report which is on record that low grade material was
used and the results of the laboratory specifies that the supply was not
of specified benchmark. The petitioner project was pertaining to sewage
and water supply for the District of Pali any supply not meeting out the
required specification can be fatal for health and against public interest.
5. The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his claim that the
order is violative of principles of natural justice and not legal, just
and proper has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court
namely (2021) 2 SCC 551: UMC Technologies Private
Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India & Anr. and (2014) 14
SCC 731: Kulja Inustries Limited Vs. Chief General
Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited & Ors. wherein, it was held that notice is pre-requisite
for blacklisting and principle of natural justice should be followed.
6. On perusal of records of the writ petition, submissions
advanced by both the respective counsels and judgments cited at
bar it is no doubt true that the impugned order dated 13.11.2018
(3 of 4) [CW-21083/2019]
was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, a blanket
ban of permanent nature was imposed against the petitioner
company without affording them any notice and opportunity of
hearing.
7. On this account alone, the impugned order dated 13.11.2018
is liable to be set-aside. But on the contrary we cannot ignore the
fact that the respondents are into works of public interest and
infrastructure development, any low grade supply, if it is alleged,
can be fatal for the common public wherein there will be loss not
only of revenue but may affect the health of the citizens at large.
It is also noted that vide order dated 10.12.2019 by way of
interim order, the Hon'ble Court had modified the operation of the
order dated 13.11.2018 restricting the ban to the extent of RUIDP.
8. This Court makes the said order dated 10.12.2019 as
absolute and set aside the remaining portion of impugned order
dated 13.11.2018, for the time being till the disposal of the
following proposal which was accepted by both the counsels
appearing for the respective parties.
9. That by 15th of February, 2022 a show cause notice will be
served by the respondent- RUIDP upon the petitioner company
about the defects and irregularities committed by them along with
punishment/penalty to be initiated. The respondents will also
specify the name of five independent arbitrators, out of their panel
who are independent and impartial and are not ex-employees of
the department but experts in the field of legal/technical side and
can adjudicate upon the matter in disputes.
10. That within 30 days from 15th February, 2022 i.e. on receipt
of show cause notice, a response/ defence will be submitted by
the petitioner company along with the selection of one of the
(4 of 4) [CW-21083/2019]
arbitrator out of the given list for adjudication of the case. The
learned arbitrator so chosen by the petitioner company and
respondents will decide his fee as per Schedule IV of the
Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 1996 and adjudicate the case/
matter within a time period of sixty days on receipt of the reply,
on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observation of
the Court.
11. With these directions, the present writ petition is disposed of
and the order dated 13.11.2018 is modified in terms of interim
order dated 10.12.2019 till the adjudication of the case by the
learned arbitrator.
12. In light of the above above terms, the writ petition is
disposed of with the consent of the parties.
13. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
RAJAT KUMAR/Faheem 44
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
