Allowed

Universal Tele Service, v. the Chief General Manager (Telecom)

Kerala HC18 Jan 2023WP(C)/280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging an order blacklisting the petitioner from BSNL tenders for three years. The Court held the order violated natural justice principles as the petitioner was denied adequate opportunity to explain his side during a critical adjournment request, and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned blacklisting order (Ext.P21) is quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 3rd respondent for a personal hearing on 31.01.2023 at 10:30 a.m.

Universal Tele Service, Vs the Chief General… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 280 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

UNIVERSAL TELE SERVICE, AGED 48 YEARS ST. GEORGE BUILDING, PULAMON (P.O) KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691506, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, RAJESH BABU,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O M.V.BABU, PROPRIETOR, UNIVERSAL TELESERVICES, ST. GEORGE BUILDING, PULAMON (PO), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT , PIN - 691531 BY ADVS. R.REJI M.V.THAMBAN THARA THAMBAN B.BIPIN ARUN BOSE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KERALA CIRCLE, DOORSANCHAR BHAVAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM PIN - 695033 2 THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682016 3 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682016

¶10

W.P.(C).280/2023

¶11

¶12

4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682016 5 THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683101

¶13

BY ADV MATHEWS K.PHILIP KALAPPURACKAL PHILIPOSE

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SR. ADV. RAMESH CHANDER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).280/2023

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2023

¶21

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by Ext.P21

¶22

order, interdicting the petitioner from

¶23

participating in the tenders of the BSNL for Ernakulam Business Area for three years. The challenge is primarily on the ground that the impugned order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. For this purpose, learned Senior Counsel drew attention to Ext.P11 interim order of this Court directing the

¶24

competent among the respondents to consider the

¶25

explanation offered by the petitioner, to the show cause notice proposing to black list the petitioner,

¶26

and take a reasoned decision thereafter. It is submitted that in purported compliance of the interim order, Ext.P17 notice was issued, directing to appear

¶27

W.P.(C).280/2023

¶28

¶29

for a personal hearing either online or offline at

¶30

12:00 p.m on 27.12.2022. On the same day, the petitioner sent Ext.P18 reply pointing out his inability to appear for the personal hearing as his

¶31

daughter was undergoing pediatric treatment.

¶32

Thereupon, the respondent issued Ext.P19 communication intimating that the hearing is adjourned to the next day i.e 28.12.2022. The petitioner again sent a reply (Ext.P20) explaining

¶33

his inability to appear and requesting to fix the

¶34

hearing to a date after 05.01.2023. In spite of the request for adjournment based on a valid ground, the impugned order was passed, blacklisting the petitioner. It is submitted that if an opportunity is granted, the petitioner will be able to prove that

¶35

it was not at fault and the contract ought to be continued.

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL

¶37

submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to

¶38

W.P.(C).280/2023

¶39

¶40

the petitioner. Further, the medical certificate

¶41

furnished by the petitioner is suspicious, since it is issued on Christmas day.

¶42

It is settled law that, black listing being

¶43

the harshest of punishments, the principles of

¶44

natural justice should be scrupulously followed. As

¶45

far as the instant case is concerned, even though the

¶46

BSNL had granted a days' adjournment on the

¶47

petitioner’s request, that the petitioner having

¶48

sought a longer adjournment on the ground that his

¶49

daughter was undergoing pediatric treatment, the

¶50

request ought to have been considered

¶51

sympathetically, rather than proceeding to blacklist the petitioner without hearing. Hence, I am

¶52

compelled to quash Ext.P21 order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶53

In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

¶54

Ext.P21 Order is quashed. The petitioner shall appear

¶55

before the third respondent at 10:30 a.m., on

¶56

W.P.(C).280/2023

¶57

¶58

31.01.2023 for the personal hearing. If the petitioner fails to appear at the time and date mentioned above, the 3^rd respondent can take a decision in the matter, without affording further

¶59

opportunity to the petitioner.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

Dxy

W.P.(C).280/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 280/2023

¶67

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶68

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TENDER NO.PLG/EXTERNAL PLANT MTNCE TENDER/TU10/1 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22.11.2022
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2022
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORTED APPEARED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 11.11.2022
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4THRESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2022
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.11.2022
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NO. DET.ALY/22-23/7 DT. 29.11.2022 OF THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OF THE BSNL, ALUVA
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE SHAW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO: KLEKM-17/18/(19)/2/2022-PLG EKM KRL/33 DATED 12.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.12.2022
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN W.P(C) NO.39973/2022
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.12.2022 IN W.P(C).NO.39973 OF 2022 (V)
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.12.2022
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE B.S.N.L SAP ERP ROLL OUT

¶69

W.P.(C).280/2023

¶70

¶71

VENDER MASTER DATA TEMPLATE

¶72

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE LETTERS ISSUED BY ONE GIRISH KUMAR P.P DATED 20.12.2022 Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY BSNL CONTRACTORS DATED 05.09.2022 Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN W.P(C) NO.39973/2022 Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 24.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY MAIL DATED 26.12.2022 Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL LETTER DATED 27.12.2022 Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF REPLY MAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.12.2022 Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER NO:KL EKM17/18(19)/2/2022-PLG EKM KRL/59 DATED 31.12.2022 Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 25.12.2022 ISSUED BY DR.ANIL.K.THARIAN RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit -R1(a) Exhibit-R1(a) : True copy of the tender notice dated 30.4.2022 published in June 2022 Exhibit-R1(b) Exhibit-R1(b) : True copy of the agreement dated 24.8.2022 between the petitioner and BSNL PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P23 True copy of the letter dated 28.06.2021 submitted by BSNL External Plan Maintenance

¶73

W.P.(C).280/2023

¶74

¶75

Contractors' Association before the CFA Director, BSNL, New Delhi Exhibit P24 True copy of the letter dated 23.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent

Universal Tele Service, v. the Chief General Manager (Telecom)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Universal Tele Service, v. the Chief General Manager (Telecom)

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

Anjana Trades and Agencies Vs State of Kerala

Aji Peter Vs the Chief Engineer

Sajeevan N.v., Vs Kerala Water Authority

Alfa Breeze Apartment Residents Association Vs Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Boban v T Vs Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Represented by Its General Manager

Valsalam T Vs State of Kerala