Disposed

M/S Jeet and Jeet Glass and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Thru. Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024WRIC/7261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a 5-year blacklisting order and non-issue of personal hearing. Court found prima facie satisfaction that a hearing was given to the Director. While holding no personal hearing required for contractual matters post-showcause, it stayed the 5-year debarment, reducing it to two years, and ordered departments to treat the order as sub judice.

What did the court decide?

Condition of blacklisting for five years read as two years; departments informed order is sub judice.

M/S Jeet and Jeet Glass and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7261 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Jeet And Jeet Glass And Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Thru. Authorized Signatory

¶2

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupras Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶4

1. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anupras Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

¶5

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶6

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the Black Listing Order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Deputy Inspector General (Security) U.P. whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of 5 years. (Contained as Annexure No.1 with the writ petition)

¶7

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 02.07.2024 and Letter dated 22.07.2024 passed by Deputy Inspector General (Security) U.P. (Contained as Annexure No.22 and Annexure No.24 withe the writ petition) "

¶8

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents knew all along that the petitioner would supply Multipact make bullet resistant glass and not Isoclaima or AGP make bullet resistant glass. Respondents also conducted random inspections of the petitioner's Factory and collected samples and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory Gujarat. The Respondents were satisfied with the report of the C.F.S.L. Gujarat and only then accepted the bullet proofing done by the petitioner with respect to two tenders issued by them for the year 2019-20 and for the year 202223.

¶9

4. The first tender was with respect to 10 Toyota

¶10

Fortuner Cars and 05 Tata Safari Storme Cars. The second tender issued on 05.02.2022 was with respect to 34 Toyota Fortuner Cars. The petitioner had clearly mentioned that he will supply Multiplact make glass and not Isoclaima or AGP make glass more specifically in his bid submitted in pursuance of second tender dated 05.02.2022, yet the respondents conducted an enquiry in which the report was not given to the petitioner, and, thereafter issued notices as to why the petitioner should not be blacklisted. Such notice was issued on 02.07.2024, to which the petitioner initially replied on 11.07.2024, and the second notice issued on 22.07.2024, to which the petitioner replied on 30.07.2024. The petitioner was under the impression that he will be granted personal hearing as he had demanded personal hearing in his reply dated 11.07.2024 and 30.07.2024, however the impugned order has been passed blacklisting the petitioner without giving him personal hearing.

¶11

5. It has also been submitted that in the tender notices that were issued by the respondents, it was stated clearly that except for certain conditions which have been mentioned in the tender notice itself, rest of the conditions shall be in accordance with the U.P. Procurement Manual, 2016. The U.P. Procurement Manual, 2016 has been filed as annexure to the petition, in which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph-6.20 and the mention made therein that the Central guidelines shall be followed. The Central guidelines have also been filed as annexure to the petition, issued on 02.11.2021. In the Central guidelines issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Procurement Policy Division, Government of India, paragraph-5, sub-clause (a), sub-clause (d) and sub-clause (e) have been read out by the counsel for the petitioner and it has been pointed out that the blacklisting order should be confined for a period of two years, and it should not be circulated to other ministerial departments and will only be applicable to all Attached / Subordinate Offices/ Autonomous Bodies/ Central Public Sector Undertakings of the Ministry/ Department, issuing such debarment orders and before passing of such

¶12

order, reasonable opportunity has to be given to the concerned Firm to represent against such debarment including personal hearing, if requested by the Firm.

¶13

6. It has been submitted that personal hearing was not given, although it was demanded and the impugned order has debarred the petitioner for a period of five years with effect from 06.08.2024 to 05.08.2029 and has also circulated the debarment order to all States/ Union Territories and their Police Officers.

¶14

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also read out nine endorsement made on the order dated 06.08.2024.

¶15

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Director (Security) of the Cabinet Secretariat, CGO Complex, New Delhi, has also been sent a copy of the order blacklisting the petitioner.

¶16

9. Not only that, the Director of GeM Portal, Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi, have been sent a copy of the order, as also the Assistant Director (Procurement), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

¶17

10. Learned counsel for the State Respondents has pointed out from the order impugned that in the enquiry that was conducted after complaint was received regarding bullet resistant glasses being supplied by the petitioner's firm being damaged and being repaired/ replaced constantly some times within the warranty period and some times outside the warranty period, the Director of the petitioner Firm was personally heard by the Enquiry Officer and he admitted in his statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer that for the 2019 tender, out of 10 Toyota Fortuner Cars, only 03 Toyota Fortuner Cars had some bullet resistant glass of AGP make installed in them, and also admitted that the technical conditions that were prescribed regarding supply of bullet resistant glass of Isoclaima and AGP make was not followed.

¶18

11. We have gone through the impugned order

¶19

and we find prima facie that the petitioner's Director was given personal hearing and his statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It was not as if the petitioner's Director was not aware of the enquiry being conducted for the purpose for which it was being conducted.

¶20

12. This Court prima facie is satisfied that this being a contractual matter, no personal hearing was required after show-cause notice was issued. However, we also find that as against the Central Government's guidelines with regard to blacklisting only for a period of two years, the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of five years. Also, we find that the order of blacklisting has been circulated to all in sundry.

¶21

13. Let a counter affidavit be filed by the State Respondents to the writ petition within a period of three weeks.

¶22

14. One week's time thereafter shall be available to learned Counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶23

15. List this case on 24.09.2024.

¶24

16 . Till the next date of listing, the condition regarding blacklisting for a period of five years shall be read as blacklisting only for a period of two years. The Departments to which endorsement has been made by the D.I.G., (Security), shall be informed that the order is Sub judice and that the order shall not be considered as binding upon them.

¶25

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Rahul

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Jeet and Jeet Glass and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Thru. Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jeet and Jeet Glass and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Thru. Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs, Lucknow and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Syed Muzaffar Agha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 5 Others

Mohd. Saleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Food Safety) Civil Sect. and 3 Others

Sarala Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Maya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Jay Prakash vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Others

Vinod Kumar Kanaujia vs State Chief Information Commissioner U.P. Information Commission Lko. and 2 Others