Dismissed

Harshakumar C.S. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Kerala HC26 Jun 2009WP(C)/13942/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged blacklisting and EMD forfeiture after failing to execute an agreement for optical fiber construction despite multiple notices requiring action within seven days, despite initially lacking EPF registration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed holding the petitioner is responsible for consequences of failing to execute agreement within seven days despite notice.

Harshakumar C.S. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 13942 of 2009(K)

PETITIONER(S):

HARSHAKUMAR C.S.CHAKRAPANI COTTAGE, PANACHAMOODU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR NEW DELHI.

¶14

GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, B.S.N.L.,ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L. ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR RPTS.

¶17

SRI. MATHEW K. PHILIP, SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.GIRI, J.

¶20

- - - - W.P. (C) No.13942 OF 2009

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2009

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

First respondent invited tenders for optical fibre cable construction works for GSM sites in Mavelikkara. In the instructions to bidders, they were required to furnish proof of valid EPF registration in the name of the bidder. It seems that the petitioner did not have any EPF registration in his name. Nevertheless the petitioner was called for a negotiation. His bid was accepted and he was asked to execute an agreement. He submitted Ext.P3 representation expressing his inability to obtain EPF registration and requested refund of Earnest Money Deposit. According to him, without a further hearing Ext P4 order was passed not only forfeiting the EMD, but also blacklisting him from participating in any tender for two years in the BSNL Alappuzha Secondary Switching Area. This is challenged in this writ petition.

¶25

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. While accepting that EPF Registration was incorporated as a condition in the tender notification, notwithstanding the absence of EPF registration, the petitioner was awarded the work, taking note of R3(a) undertaking that he will produce EPF registration within 45 days. He did not do so. He was then informed by Ext.R3(c) that

¶26

WPC.No.13942 OF 2009

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

failure on his part to comply with the requirement to execute the necessary agreement is in contravention of clause 25(Para 4) of the tender conditions. Petitioner, by R3(d) letter dated 7.3.2009 informed the respondents that the EPF authorities had rejected his application for registration. The respondents again made a concession by informing the petitioner as per Ext.R3(e) that EPF registration can be obtained in the course of the work and it is important that the petitioner executes the agreement within seven days. He was further informed that failure on his part to do so will result in forfeiture of the EMD and blacklisting for two years. There was no response on his part and ultimately Ext.P4 communication was issued.

¶29

I heard the learned counsel for petitioner S. Mohammed Al Rafi and Sri. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for respondent. The main contentions by the petitioner is absence of notice and hearing. This contention is belied by Ext.R3(e), (f) and (g). If that be so I am not in a position to hold that the conduct of the respondents violates the principles of natural justice or is otherwise in contravention of the tender conditions.

¶30

I find that the petitioner was put on notice regarding the possibility of being blacklisted and EMD forfeited if he fails

¶31

WPC.No.13942 OF 2009

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

to execute the agreement within seven days from the date of receipt of Ext.R3(e). He did not choose to respond. Petitioner is responsible for the consequences.

¶34

I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

¶36

jma

Harshakumar C.S. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshakumar C.S. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

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

Nagarajan G. Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.v.Lalu Vs the Director of Mining and Geology & Ors.

Anoop T Jose Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa Vs State of Keralae and Others

Jacob John Vs State of Kerala

Francis Nigil @ George Francis Vs the Village Officer, Fort Kochi.