The petitioner challenged an order debarring them from rail tenders. During the hearing, it was conceded on both sides that the debarment was for only one year. The Court held the petition infructuous as no grievance remained regarding the current ban period.
The petition was dismissed as by this time it had become infructuous.
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.
$~18
KISHAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Mohan, Mr. Mohit Kumar and Mr. Chetan R. Wahi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. Amit Sinha, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 21.07.2017
Petitioner assails an order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railways, which is as under:-
“In reference to above, the competent authority (CCM) has considered that leaseholder’s appeal as well as comments of the division and decided as follows:-
“Decision of the Sr. DCM/FZR is upheld on the ground that adequate opportunity has been given to the lease holder to sign the agreement and commence loading. Due process should be followed for debarring for one year as per decision for Sr. DCM/FZR.”
You are therefore requested to take action accordingly under advice to this office.”
During the course of the hearing, both the ld. counsel for the parties concede that the debarment of the alleged blacklisting is for one year only. When that is so, nothing survives in the petition. Ld. counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been participating in the future tenders, but, it was under the interim orders
of the Court. When, admittedly, the debarment was for only one year, his participation in the tendering for subsequent periods, must have been entertained on its own merits. Suffice to say, it is no one’s case that the impugned blacklisting was to survive beyond one year. Petition is therefore, dismissed having been infructuous.
Dismissed.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JULY 21, 2017
ac
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a debarment order has any merit when the debarment period is admitted to be only one year.
Kishan Freight Forwarders
Union of India
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
