Disposed

Jai Bharathi Constructions v. Union of India

Madras HC5 Aug 2024WP/9208/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A railway contractor whose business ban was earlier quashed sought permission to bid for higher-value signalling and telecommunications tenders. The respondents had no objection; the court directed that the contractor be allowed to participate in future tenders valued at Rs.10 crores without relying on the revoked ban order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to allow petitioner to participate in future tenders valued at Rs.10 crores for signalling and telecommunications projects without relying on the ban order; no costs.

Jai Bharathi Constructions Vs Union of India — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

¶7

Jai Bharathi Constructions, Rep. by its Proprietor, Surender Reddy .... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India, rep. by the Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Executive Director (Signal), Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶10

Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, Southern Railway, GM Building, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

1/6

¶13

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit petitioner to participate in tenders valued at Rs.10 Crores with respect to signalling and telecommunications projects with the Railways duly enhancing the 'Experience and Financial Turn – over' which were lost due to the illegal ban of business imposed from 9.3.2018 till date.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T. Srikrishna Bhagavat For Respondents : Mr.M. Vijay Anand for R1 to R3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in tenders valued at Rs.10 Crores with respect to signalling and telecommunications projects with the Railways duly enhancing the 'Experience and Financial Turn – over' which were lost due to the illegal ban of business imposed from 9.3.2018 till date.

¶18

The short facts of the case are as follows :-

¶19

The petitioner claims to be a Contractor carrying on business of

¶20

executing 'Signal and Telecommunications' contracts for the Indian Railways. Earlier, the petitioner was awarded the contract of signalling arrangement by the respondents and the petitioner has completed the said

¶21

work and thus earned a good reputation. While so, due to some false https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2/6

¶23

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

¶24

allegations against the petitioner, an order was issued by the respondents on 09.03.2018 banning all business with him for a period of three years.

¶25

Though the allegations framed against the petitioner have not been proved, the respondents have issued the ban order. Challenging the said illegal banning, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.21055 of 2019 seeking to quash the ban order, dated 09.03.2018. This Court by its order dated 10.02.2020 allowed the above writ petition as well as directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in future Tenders. It is the case of the petitioner that despite directions issued by this Court, they have been deprived from participating in higher valued Tenders called for by the respondents. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having been illegally banned was put to much hardship in his business. He further submitted that prior to the above banning of business, the petitioner was eligible to participate for tenders valued at Rs.6 Crores and by now, the petitioner became eligible to quote for tenders valued at Rs.10 Crores and above, whereas due to illegal ban, he was unable to quote for higher value. He vehemently argued that despite the ban order dated 09.03.2018 having been set aside by this Court, the respondents are

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/6

¶29

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

¶30

not permitting the petitioner to participate in tenders of higher value. Hence, it would suffice, if a direction is issued by this Court to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in tenders valued at Rs.10 crores and above with respect to signalling and telecommunications projects of the respondents.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was black-listed earlier for some irregularities. Subsequent to issuance of directions by this Court, the revocation of ban order, dated 11.08.2020 was issued to the petitioner. However, on instructions, he has no objection for issuance of appropriate directions by this Court, by permitting the petitioner to participate in tenders valued at Rs.10 crores with respect to signalling and telecommunications projects of the respondents, without relying on the said ban order, in future.

¶32

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the respondents have issued an order of ban, thereby the petitioner's business with the respondents have been stopped for a quite some of period. On perusal of records, it reveals that earlier, the petitioner was awarded contract worth of Rs.6 crores, i.e. prior

¶34

to issuance of ban order. It is further noted that pursuant to the directions

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

4/6

¶37

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

¶38

issued by this Court on 10.02.2020 in W.P. No.21055 of 2019, the said ban order was revoked by the respondents and owing to which, the petitioner was placed in a position to participate in the tender of the respondents. When that being so, the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner to participate in the tender, which are of higher value i.e., Rs.10 crores can be considered, in future, by the respondents, which would not cause any prejudice to them.

¶39

In the light of the aforesaid observations, this Court directs the respondents to the allow the petitioner to participate in future tenders valued at Rs.10 Crores with respect to signalling and telecommunications projects with them, without relying the ban order.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the

¶41

aforesaid directions. No costs.

¶42

05.08.2024

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/6

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

vsi2

To 1. The Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Union of India, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶50

The Executive Director (Signal), Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶51

The General Manager, Union of India, Southern Railway, GM Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶52

W.P. No.9208 of 2021

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

05.08.2024

¶55

6/6

Jai Bharathi Constructions v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bharathi Constructions v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Deepa Vs E.Vigneshwar

Krishnan Vs Chellammal

Kulam Mohamed Ibrahim Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police

D.Vidyavathi Vs the Tahsildar

B.Ravichandran, Vs the Commissioner

Anaikkarai (a) Elangovan, Vs the Commissioner