Disposed

Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjeev Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Dept and Ors.

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024WRIC/9182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid on the ground that the authority erred by using 'black-listing' instead of 'debarment' in the rejection order. The high court granted liberty to the petitioner to file written objections within 24 hours with a requirement to decide within 48 hours.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit written objections to the Managing Director within 24 hours, to be considered and decided by a reasoned order within the next 48 hours.

Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71926-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9182 of 2024 Petitioner :- Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjeev Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Dept And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Tushar Mittal,Vinayajit Lal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Trivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶6

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order, the concerned authority has omitted to notice and appreciate the fact that while the term black-listed/banned/debarred has been used in Clause vii (i) and a part of Clause vii (ii) (i) but it has not been so used in Clause vii (ii) (i) per se and that there is a distinction, as per the opposite parties themselves in their understanding of the tender conditions drafted by them between black-listing/banning and debarring as all these words have not been used at some places and only black-listing has been mentioned therefore, this distinction should have been kept in mind while rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. The aforesaid distinction in the terms and conditions applicable specially absence of the words debarred/banned and occurrence of only black-listing in Clause vii(ii)(i) under the Heading 'FOR FIRM/COMPANY' in the context of such action by the State Government/Central Government or its Drug Procurement Agency, has not been taken into consideration.

¶7

The further submission is that the Gujarat Medical Supply Corporation Limited has debarred the petitioner in respect of only one drug but the order rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner speaks of black-listing by GMSCL, which is factually incorrect.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection if opportunity is given to the petitioner to submit a written objection in this regard against the rejection of its technical bid within 24 hours which shall be considered within the next 48 hours.

¶9

We, accordingly, dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit such objections to the Managing Directoropposite party no.3 within 24 hours which shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order within the next 48 hours.

¶10

Copy of the order be given today.

¶11

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Pks

¶12

[Brij Raj Singh,J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶13

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjeev Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjeev Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Dept and Ors.

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

Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Lucknow Vs M/S Reliance Industries Limited Somaiya Nagar Barabanki

Smt. Anjesh Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Backward Welfare Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. Thru. Auth. Officer Chandan Negi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 6 Others

Doodhnath vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and 2 Others

Farmeeda Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Savitri Devi Thru Lawful Attorney Durga Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. D.M. Unnao and Ors.