Disposed

Anil Enterprises v. Assistant General Manager (Pv)

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021WP(C)/17585/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court disposed of the challenge to an order debarring the petitioner from BSNL tenders, directing the petitioner to file a representation with the third respondent for examination of the order

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to prefer representation against Ext.P9 within three days; third respondent directed to pass orders within a week after hearing.

Anil Enterprises Vs Assistant General Manager (Pv) — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA,

¶5

1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 17585 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ANIL ENTERPRISES, AMC XI/735, ATTINGAL-695 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER TINKU A.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PV) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, SEVA KENDRA, STATUE M.G ROAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 001

¶12

2 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (S & M-CM), BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695 033

¶13

3 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KERALA TELECOM CIRCILE, TRIVANDRUM-695 033

¶14

4 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KERALA TELECOM CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.

¶15

BY SRI.PREMJITH NAGENDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.17585 of 2021

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.17585 of 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner was awarded a franchisee-ship by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for its Neyyattinkara territory and he has been given a communication requiring to complete the formalities relating to the execution of documents by 12.06.2021. Ext.P9 order has now been issued by the second respondent debarring the petitioner from participating in the tenders of BSNL alleging that they have not complied with the direction aforesaid and the said conduct has caused huge loss to BSNL. Ext.P9 order is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶22

When this matter was taken up, the learned Standing Counsel for BSNL pointed out that the petitioner has

¶23

W.P.(C) No.17585 of 2021

¶24

¶25

preferred a representation against Ext.P9 order before the first respondent, and the petitioner was informed by the first respondent that the competent authority to examine the correctness of orders in the nature of Ext.P9 is the third respondent. It was also pointed out by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner has so far not preferred any representation against Ext.P9 order before the third respondent.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is only appropriate that the third respondent examines the sustainability of Ext.P9 order before the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for the said purpose is entertained, as the matter relates to a commercial decision taken by BSNL.

¶27

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation against Ext.P9 before the third respondent within three days, and directing the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate

¶28

W.P.(C) No.17585 of 2021

¶29

¶30

orders thereon within a week thereafter, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner shall furnish in the representation their e-mail id and the third respondent is directed to issue notice of the hearing through e- mail to the petitioner. It is made clear that the opportunity of hearing ordered to be given to the petitioner in terms of this judgment can be through video conferencing. Needless to say, until a decision as directed above is taken by the third respondent, proceedings in terms of Ext.P10 shall not be finalised.

¶31

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶32

ds 01.09.2021

¶33

W.P.(C) No.17585 of 2021

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17585/2021

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT OF DATED 05.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶38

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶39

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶40

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PV), THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶41

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.08.2021 GRANTING EXTENSION

¶42

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 17.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE BANK

¶43

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 17.08.2021 ALONG WITH THE EXTENSION OF VALIDITY PERIOD OF BANK GUARANTEE NO.141571218000012 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

¶44

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 18.08.2021 ALONG WITH THE EXTENSION OF VALIDITY PERIOD OF BANK GUARANTEE NO.141571217000013 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

¶45

W.P.(C) No.17585 of 2021

¶46

¶47

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶48

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.08.2021 INVITING EXPRESSION OF INTEREST

Anil Enterprises v. Assistant General Manager (Pv)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Enterprises v. Assistant General Manager (Pv)

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

Leo Abraham Vs a.P.Kiran

Kabeer P.M., Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Gopalakrishnan Nair a., Vs State of Kerala

Mon Joseph Vs Dr. Narasimhugari

Ashiq Ks Vs H. Nagesh Prabhu

Pallickamalil Cinema Company Private Limited Vs Union of India