Disposed

Gaurav Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIC/25454/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the forfeiture of security and blacklisting of a firm. Instead of a final decision, the court exercised its power to direct the authorities to decide a pending representation filed by the petitioner within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide the pending representation within two weeks and issue a speaking order after inquiry and hearing within twelve weeks.

Gaurav Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132834-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25454 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Gaurav Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

1. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by Basic Education Officer, Agra forfeiting the security amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- and blacklisting the petitioner' firm.

¶7

2. The petitioner is doing business in the name of M/s Gee Pee Associates. He was awarded a contract for supply of furniture to the schools run by the Basic Education Department. The petitioner is alleged to have failed to deliver furniture to eight schools. According to the respondents, he was issued a notice on 14.01.2020 pointing out the aforesaid default on his part. The petitioner submitted an application on 17.01.2020 in the office of District Basic Education Officer seeking ten days' further time to supply the furnitures. On 24.06.2020, he was required to file an affidavit to the above effect. In compliance thereof, he filed an affidavit stating that he would supply the furniture to the remaining schools within ten days. The order recites that despite the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioner had failed to deliver furniture to the aforesaid eight schools and which amounts to breach of the conditions of contract. Consequently, the security amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been forfeited and his firm has been blacklisted, after seeking approval from the District Magistrate.

¶8

3. The case of the petitioner is that out of eight schools, one school declined to receive the furniture. The furniture of the remaining schools could not be supplied on account of COVID19 pandemic. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the authorities pointing out the above facts but the same has not been considered so far.

¶9

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Basic Education Officer, Sri R.B. Yadav, fairly states that the representation filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent no. 4 and has not been decided so far. He submits that since the impugned order was passed after seeking approval of the District Magistrate, therefore, the District Magistrate may be directed to decide the representation.

¶10

5. Having regard to the submissions made, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation alongwith true attested copy of the instant order before respondent no. 3 within two weeks from today and in which event respondent no. 3 shall decide the same by means of a speaking order after seeking report from the District Basic Education Officer, Agra and hearing the parties within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

¶11

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Ruhi H.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baleshwar Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Bina Paliwal Vs Indian Oil Coporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Devi Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rashmi Mishra Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director and 3 Others