Remanded

Suyog Telematics Limited v. the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (Msrdc)

Bombay HC21 Feb 2024WP/3035/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a blacklisting order by Respondent 1, contending violation of natural justice. The Bench held that hearing is mandatory and remanded the matter for issuing a show cause notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Remand to authority with direction to issue show cause notice, grant hearing, and pass order in accordance with law.

Suyog Telematics Limited Vs the Maharashtra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

14.WP3035 _2023.DOC

¶2

2024:BHC-OS:2921-DB

¶3

Vidya Amin

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3035 OF 2023

¶6

Suyog Telematics Ltd. … Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Maharashtra State Road Development …Respondents Corporation (MSRDC) & Anr.

¶9

Mr. Shanay Shah a/w. Mr. Vijay Dighe for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Saket More a/w. Mr. Shrey Shah i/b. Vidhi Partners for respondent no. 1.

¶11

Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for respondent no. 2.

¶12

_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 21 February, 2024

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service, by consent of the parties heard finally.

¶15

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 27 February, 2023 passed by respondent no. 1 whereby the petitioner-company has been blacklisted and is prohibited from participating in any of the tenders issued by respondent no.

¶16

The basic grievance of the petitioner is that such orders have been passed without the petitioner being heard.

¶17

Page 1 of 2 21 February, 2024

¶18

14.WP3035 _2023.DOC

¶19

Considering the settled position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal¹ , Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Anr.² and Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.³ , no order blacklisting the petitioner could have been passed without the petitioner being granted an opportunity of a hearing following the principles of natural justice. Thus, per se the impugned order is bad and illegal. It is accordingly required to be set aside. We accordingly remand the matter to the authority with a direction to follow due procedure in law by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass an order in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶20

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs

¶21

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)

¶22

1 (1975) 1 SCC 70 2 AIR 1994 SC 1277 3 (2014) 9 SCC 105

¶23

Page 2 of 2 21 February, 2024

¶24

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/02/2024 11:58:13

Suyog Telematics Limited v. the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (Msrdc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suyog Telematics Limited v. the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (Msrdc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aecone Consumer Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India Thr the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Suumit Enterprise Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance , Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Shri. Yogesh Rajendra Mehra Vs Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Exise Raigad (Appeal) and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs District Collector Mumbai Suburban District and Anr.

Mukul Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saraswati Education Society Vs Union of India and Anr.