Writ petition challenging refusal to open a bid for transporting coal overburden. Court held that debarment applies to future tenders and error in one area does not justify repeating it in another.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
26022015wpno.17.2015 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 17 of 2015
Punya Coal Roadlines through its Proprietor vs. Western Coal Fields Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur and another.
Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.
Mr. M.G.Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.V.Bhangde, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Mr. M. Anilkumar Adv, for respondents.
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI & MRS. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 26.2.2015
The petitioner is basically aggrieved by the action of
the respondent authority in refusing to open the price bid of the petitioner. Certain dates relevant for consideration of the present petition, are as under:
26022015wpno.17.2015 2
the petitioner was successful in the said bid. The bids were opened on 19.12.2014. However, the petitioner’s bid was not opened on the ground that the petitioner stood debarred on 10.11.2014.
26022015wpno.17.2015 3
cannot be permitted to apply different yard stick. He submits that in another area when the contract is granted even after debarment and in one area it is rejected on the debarment.
26022015wpno.17.2015 4
from the law, we find that the said submission is against the common sense logic. When a particular contractor’s conduct has been found to be of such nature that the authority finds it impossible to continue with him and which conduct has been also found to be of such a nature by this court and when this court has specifically refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority in cancelling of earlier contract and debarring it for three years, thrusting such a contractor on the authority of the State, in our view, would be against any logic and in any case against the public interest.
JUDGE JUDGE
26022015wpno.17.2015 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the respondent authority's refusal to open the petitioner's bid based on prior debarment.
Whether the debarment order issued on 10.11.2014 is applicable to the tender issued on 16.7.2014 given the specific words 'in future'.
Whether an error committed by the respondent in awarding a contract in another area after debarment should allow the same conduct in the present area.
Punya Coal Roadlines
Western Coal Fields Limited
B.R. Gavai
Mrs. Mridula R. Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
