M/s R.B. Enterprises Vs Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶2

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTCE _

¶5

AND

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 136 OF 2025 ^

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 20.11.2024 made in W.P. No. 2399^of on the file of the High Court. __

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s R.B. Enterprises, 4064, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006^{THROUGHITSSOLE} PROPRIETOR - Shri Avneet Goyal

¶10

...APPELLANT _

¶11

AND

¶12

Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, (A STATE

¶13

GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING)

¶14

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT -

¶15

IVth and Vth floor Corp. Office H. No. 10-152/1, Sri Sai Towers, Ashok - Nagar, Beside siris company, Kanuru, Bandar Road, Vijayawada 520007.

¶16

EARLIER OFFICE AT

¶17

6-3-655/1/A, Civil Supplies Bhavan Somajiguda, Hyderabad^-500082 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶18

State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶19

v>

¶20

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

¶21

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department Sri Sai Towers, Beside Siris Company, Chowdhaiy pet, Ayyappa Nagar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520007. EARLIER AT -

¶22

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Andhra Pradesh State Council of Ministers Room no. 704, J - Block

¶23

...RESPONDENTS^

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay the operation of the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23996/2017 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. ^

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant:SRI. GANDHAM RAGHAVENDRA PA VAN ^ Counsel for the Respondent; SRI P HEMACHANDRA GP FOR CIVIL ^ SUPPLIES

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

I I

¶29

APHC010032652025

¶30

Bench
iNTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH AT
AMARAVATI Sr.No:-8
[3446]

¶31

WRITAPPEALNO:136of2025

M/s.R.B. Enterprises

...Appellant

Vs.

AndhraPradeshStateCivilSuppliesCorporationLimitedand others

¶36

...Respondents

¶37

¶38

AdvocateforAppellant; Mr.GandhamRaghavendraPavan AdvocatesforRespondents: Mr.P.Hemachandra.GPforCivil Supplies

¶39

Mr.GandhamRaghavendraPavan

¶40

CORAM: THECHIEFJUSTICEDHIRAJSINGHTHAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶41

DATE : 20‘'’February,2025. PERDHIRAJSINGHTHAKUR,CJ-

¶42

Thepresent writ appeal underClause15 of theLetters Patent hasbeen preferred against judgment and order dated 20.11.2024, passed in W.P.No.23996 of 2017. Brieffacts;

¶43

The petitioner - appellant herein was allotted the contract for supply of 2004.117 MTs of Ghana Dal, which was to be supplied in four districts of Andhra Pradesh. This was a part of the scheme of the Government which envisaged distribution of six essential commodities free of cost to the white card holders through the Public Distribution System, in the name of ChandrannaSankranthiKanuka-2017.Thesupplieshadtobemade

¶44

HCJ&RRR.J WA_136_2025 ^

¶45

according to a fixed schedule. Whereas Christian BPL cardholders would be given supply between 20.12.2016 to 26.12.2016, all others were to besupplied from 01.01.2017 to 15.01.2017. According to the schedule, 50% of the allotment had to be supplied by 20.12.2016 and the remaining 50% by 25.12.2016, with a view to ensure that the distribution takes place through the Fair Price Shop before Christmas and Sankranti festivals. 3. The petitioner admittedly did not make the supplies as per the schedule and sought for an extension for a period of 20 days for making 50% supplies by09.01.2017and50%suppliesby14.01.2017.Thlsrequestwasrejected as the program was time bound and time sought was beyond Sankranti, which was against the purpose of said scheme announced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

¶46

On account of the non-supply, the stand of the official respondents is that an unwarranted situation was created by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation where alternate arrangements had to be made at therisk and cost of the supplier and that tenders were floated again and the commodities had to be procured at higher prices, causing loss to the State exchequer.

¶47

Acting upon the terms and conditions of the tender notice and the agreement entered into between the parties, a notice was served upon the petitioner, calling for an explanation as to whether the Earnest Money Deposit andSecurityDepositbenotforfeited.apartfromblacklistingoftheirfirm,

¶48

HCJ&RRR.J WA_136_2025

¶49

i/

¶50

preventing them from participating in future tenders. Finally, after considering the explanation, by virtue of an order dated 22.02.2017, not only was the Earnest Money Deposit and Security Deposit forfeited, in terms of the penal Clauses 12 and 13 of the agreement, but the petitioner was also blacklisted without prescribing the period through which the blacklisting was to remain operational.

¶51

In the first round of litigation, the petitioner challenged the order dated 22.02.2017, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, questioning the forfeiture of the EMD and SD and also questioning the order dated 22.02.2017, asbeing violative of the Doctrine of Proportionality. A relief was also sought to refund the petitioner's SD and EMD in the said petition.

¶52

The writ petition bearing W.P.No. 13066 of 2017 was disposed of, vide order dated14.06.2017, with a simple directionto the respondentsto consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Needless to say that by necessary implication, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner were not granted, except to the extent of considering the representation of the petitioner.

¶53

Pursuant to the orders so passed, the representation was considered, by virtue of order datedi2.07.2017, but thesame was rejected, on theground that the petitioner, who was the supplier had not supplied even half a kg. of Ghana Dal, leave aside 2004.117 MTs, which was allotted to the petitioner. Moreover,itwasheldthattheextensionfordeliveryby20dayswas .against

¶54

r

¶55

HCJ&RRR,j WA_136_2025 "

¶56

the purpose of the said scheme, announced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as the supplies had to be made within the time limit prescribed.

¶57

9- In the second round of litigation . the petitioner yet again challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 as also the order dated 12.07.2017 The writ petition was allowed partially to the extent only that the order of blacklisting could not be permitted to operate ad infinitum, and that 7 years had gone by from the date of the order impugnedi dated 12.07.2017, which was sufficient to meetthe ends of justice.

¶58

Reliance in this regard was placed upon the Apex Court judgment. rendered in the case of B.C. Biyani Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh^ wherein it was held that debarment, although an effective method of disciplining deviant suppliers and contractors, who could have committed acts of omissions and commissions or frauds including misrepresentation and falsificationofrecords yet.debarmentcanneverbepermanentandth eperiod of debarment would i invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.

¶59

However, in regard to forfeiture of the Security Deposit as also the Earnest Money Deposit, the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

¶60

In the present writ appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order to a limited extent it denied to the petitioner the relief in regard to refund of the Security Deposit as also the Earnest Money Deposit. What was sought

¶61

'201 7(3)AWC2840SC==MANU/SC/1760/2016

¶62

5

¶63

/

¶64

HCJ&RRR,J WA_136_2025

¶65

to be urged was that pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court in the first round of litigation, when the authorities considered the representation of the petitioner, the authorities restricted the punishment to blacWisting of the petitioner only, without touching upon the issue of Earnest Money Deposit or the Security Deposit, it was thus sought to be urged that there was no justification with the official respondents to deny to the petitioner refund of the said deposits when the earlier order, dated 22.02.2017, must be deemed to have been subsumed in the fresh order passed by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, dated 12.07.2017.

¶66

12, We, however, are not impressed with this line of argument. The order, dated 14.06.2017, passed in W.P.No.13066 of 2017, did not even envisage considering the entire issue afresh, which could to some extent suggest that the order, dated 22.02.2017, had been set aside. On the contrary, the order, dated 12.07.2017, passed on the representation filed by the petitioner clearly highlighted the fact that petitioner had not provided any new evidence in the representation and that the grounds on which the penal action was imposed, continue to hold good.

¶67

For facility of reference, part of the order which records the conclusionis reproduced hereunder;

¶68

'‘In compliance to the orders of Hon'ble High Court, the representation has been re examined. Since the supplier has not provided new evidences in the representation and the grounds on '^hichthepenalactionimposedholdsgoodandthesuppliernot

¶69

6

¶70

HCJ&RRR,J WA 136 2025

¶71

r

¶72

even supplied even Kg of Chana dal to the Corporation/MLS Points out of 2004.117 MTs. which was allotted to the M/s R. B. Enterprises. The supplier represented for extension of delivery period by 20 days i.e 50% by 09.01.2017 and 50% by^14.01.2017. /\s per the schedule the supplier has to supply 50%)^ofChanadal by 20.12.2016 and remaining 50%, 25.12.2016. The supplier requested for extension of time beyond Christmas and^Sankranthi which is against the purpose of special scheme announced by Govt, of AP. If the Corporation, extend the time limit the purpose will defeat

¶73

Therefore, as per penal clauses of 12&13 of Tender Schedule/request for proposal M/s R.B.Enterprises is^BLACK LISTEDand representation is herebydisposed of asper^theterms and conditions of Tender Schedule. ”

¶74