Disposed

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through Pranav Parimal v. the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Jharkhand HC20 Mar 2023WPC/1159/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their blacklisting by the Respondent authority for alleged indecision of the blacklist period. The court held that the blacklisting period had lapsed and was no longer operational.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the orders was not operative as the blacklisting period had lapsed; petitions disposed of.

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1239 of 2020

¶3

With

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 1159 of 2020

¶5

M/s Magadh Micro Towers & Transmission Private Limited, Patna through its one of the Directors, Pranav Parimal … Petitioner

¶6

(in both the cases)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited (JUSNL) through its Managing Director, Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi

¶9

The Chief Engineer (Transmission), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi

¶10

The General Manager, Contract & Materials (non W.B. Project), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi

¶11

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Medininagar, Daltonganj

¶12

The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Medininagar, Daltonganj

¶13

… … Respondents (in both the cases)

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Mr. Vikesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Sr. SC, JUSNL

¶16

-----

¶17

Order No. 05 Dated: 20.03.2023

¶18

In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer for quashing the office order nos. 84 and 83 both dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure-1 to the respective writ petitions) only to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner in connection with the works in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner will be taking other recourses available under law for redressal of its rest of the grievances as raised in the writ petitions.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as W.P.(C) No. 1239 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioner was awarded the work in pursuance of Notice Inviting Tender vide NIT No. 624/PR/JSEB/2011-12 issued by the then Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited) for Engineering, Supply of materials/equipment, Erection, Testing & Commissioning of 132 KV, D/C, 3 phase, Garhwa – Japla transmission

¶20

¶21

line on turnkey basis.

¶22

3. W.P.(C) No. 1159 of 2020 is concerning the work awarded to the petitioner in pursuance of Notice Inviting Tender vide NIT No. 215/PR/JUSNL/2015-16 floated by Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited for Erection of all materials/equipment (supplied by JUSNL) for construction of left over work of Engineering, Erection, Testing & Commissioning of 220 KV, D/C, 3 phase, Daltonganj – Garhwa transmission line (33 KM).

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders in both the writ petitions have been issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – the General Manager, Contract & Materials (non W.B. Project), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Ranchi on 25.02.2020, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted/debarred in the following manner:

¶24

“The company M/s Magadh Micro Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd., Patna shall stand black listed/ debarred for 03 (three) years and shall not be eligible for participation in future NIT of the Nigam/associated company of JUSNL.”

¶25

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on plain reading of the said paragraph of the orders, it appears that the petitioner has been blacklisted/debarred for 03 years, however, it has also been mentioned that the petitioner shall not be eligible for participation in future NIT of the Nigam/associated company of JUSNL. It thus indicates that though the petitioner has been blacklisted/debarred for 03 years, it has been made ineligible to participate in future tender of the Nigam/associated company of JUSNL for all future NITs i.e., for indefinite period.

¶26

6. On this, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that on proper reading of the said paragraph of the orders would itself make it clear that the petitioner has been blacklisted/debarred for a period of 03 years and, therefore, it has been made ineligible to participate in future NIT for the said period of 03 years only.

¶27

7. According to learned Senior Counsel for the respondents,

¶28

¶29

since the period of 03 years from the date of issuance of impugned office orders dated 25.02.2020 has already lapsed, the operation of the said orders to the extent of blacklisting/debarment of the petitioner has come to an end.

¶30

8. Considering the said submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, there is no need to further proceed in the present matter. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶31

Manish

¶32

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through Pranav Parimal v. the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through Pranav Parimal v. the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Deo Soni Vs State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Shailendra Kumar Engineer and Contractor through Its Proprietor Shailendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through One of the Director Pranav Parimal Vs the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Rahim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Excise and Prohibition Dept