Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/21246/2019 of V AND S CONSTRUCTIONS Vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, on 31 December 2019
T. RAJANI WRIT PETITION No.21246 OF 2019 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2019, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the
SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI
WRIT PETITION No.21246 OF 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the 2[nd]respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2019, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and against the statutory norms debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders with effect from 17.12.2019 and cancellation of Registration with immediate effect, as illegal.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, the Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the notice issued by the respondent-company inviting tenders, the petitioner has submitted tender on 21.8.2019, but by oversight, there was a mistake in mentioning the tender and for Rs.2,22,81,890/- it came as Rs.22,28,189/-. The counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after noticing the mistake, the petitioner has brought the same to the notice of the second respondent, even before no action is taken against the petitioner. Hence, the conduct of the petitioner in bringing the mistake to the notice of the 2[nd] respondent on the very next day of reopening of the tenders would indicate that the mistake is genuine and there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that blacklisting the petitioner is unjust.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2019 issued by the 2[nd] respondent to the extent of debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.
December 31, 2019. YS
___________________
SMT T. RAJANI, J