Petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued on the GeM portal before any final decision. Respondents stated the matter was still under consideration. The Court held the petition premature and dismissed it without examining merits, leaving rights open.
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.
$~62
G M TRADING COMPANY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aniket Prasoon, Mr. Vinit Kumar, Mr. Mayuk Roy, Mr. Mukut Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Vedansh Anand, Ms. Ojasvi, Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Advocates for R-1 with Ms. Rashi Mangal, GP.
Ms. Ankita Panikkar, Ms. Sukriti Verma, Mr. Ankit Konwar, Ms. Nishi Kashyap, Mr. Abhishek Praharaj, Advocates for R-2 & R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 23.08.2024
(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner is non-est and untenable in law;
(ii) Issue a writ in nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner;
(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that any action taken by the Respondent No. 2 pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2024 including more specifically the action of changing the status of the Incident No. 1909743 from ‘Responded to SCN’ to ‘Recommended Action’ is non-est and untenable in law;
(iv) Issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash any action taken by the Respondent No. 2 pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2024 including more specifically the action of changing the status of the Incident No.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:00:52
1909743 from ‘Responded to SCN’ to ‘Recommended Action’ being non-est and untenable in law;
(v) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to produce the relevant documents pertaining to closure / treatment of the Incident Nos. highlighted by the Petitioner in terms of paragraph P of the present Writ Petition and Annexure No. P/9 of the present Writ Petition;
(vi) Pass an order(s) directing the Respondent No. 2 to provide costs of litigation incurred by the Petitioner in pursuing the present Writ Petition, including court fees, legal fees, and other associated expenses; and pass such other/further Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 23, 2024/ab
1 Copy annexed with the petition and marked as ‘Annexure P/8’
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:00:52
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition against a pending show cause notice, where no final decision has been taken by the respondents, is maintainable or premature.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G M Trading Company
Union of India
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Sanjeev Narula
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
