Disposed

M/S Jaybee Industries and Another v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2019CWP/36859/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this CWP, petitioners challenging a corporate tender sought Certiorari to set it aside due to exclusionary clauses. The court, finding the core submission limited, did not decide the onus of the tender but disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within three weeks via a detailed order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order within three weeks from today.

M/S Jaybee Industries and Another Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

#1#

¶2

CWP No.36859 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.36859 of 2019

¶5

Date of decision: 19.12.2019

¶6

M/s Jaybee Industries and Anr.

¶7

....Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pb. State Power Corp. Ltd

¶10

....Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶13

Present: Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJIV SHARMA, J.

¶14

By means of this petition, the petitioners, who are engaged in the business of manufacturing of various types of Transformers, seek a writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned Tender dated 25.11.2019 (P.1) issued by the respondent-Corporation.

¶15

It is stated that the petitioners have been successfully executing numerous purchase orders for the respondent-Corporation over the years. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-Corporation while issuing impugned Tender has incorporated clause 16 only to debar them from applying for the tenders thereby making them ineligible.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has already made a representation dated 05.12.2019 to the Authority concerned but no action thereon has yet been taken. He states that the petitioner would be content and the interest of justice would be advanced if this petition is disposed of,

¶17

MANOJ KUMAR 2019.12.19 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

#2#

¶19

CWP No.36859 of 2019

¶20

in the first instance, with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to decide his representation (P.4).

¶21

Request appears to be worthy of acceptance.

¶22

In light of such limited submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide the representation (P.4) of the petitioner by passing a speaking/detailed order strictly in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from today .

¶23

(RAJIV SHARMA) JUDGE

¶24

(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) JUDGE

¶25

December 19, 2019 manoj

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶27

MANOJ KUMAR 2019.12.19 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Jaybee Industries and Another v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jaybee Industries and Another v. Punjab State Power Corporation 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

Lachman Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mandir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Chander Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rishabh Kharwal and Others Vs Vivek Sehrawat and Others

Haryana Public Service Commission Vs Vivek Sehrawat and Others

Deepak Sandhu Vs State of Haryana and Others