Disposed

M/s Sri Lekha Industires, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Oct 2012WP/17939/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two banks of writ appeals and petitions challenged an order blacklisting petitioners from supplying bandages/gauze to the Government and staying tenders. The High Court observed that an inspection report was not placed before the authority at the time of blacklisting. The Court directed the authority to allow a detailed representation with documents, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order. The

What did the court decide?

Directed the authority to consider petitioner's representation with documents, grant a hearing, and pass a reasoned order.

M/s Sri Lekha Industires, Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NOs.1173, 1175 AND 1197 OF 2012; AND WRIT PETITION NOs.17946, 17939 AND 17950 of 2012

¶3

DATED:3.10.2012

¶4

W.A. No.1173 of 2012 Between: Andhra Pradesh Health and Medical Housing & Infrastructure Development Corporation Sulthan Bazar Koti, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director … Appellant And Sri Lekha Industries Shed No.F.1 Industrial Estate Suryapet, Nalgonda and others … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NOs.1173, 1175 AND 1197 OF 2012; AND WRIT PETITION NOs.17946, 17939 AND 17950 of 2012

¶8

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶9

Writ petitioners in these matters approached this Court ventilating their grievance with regard to issuance of orders blacklisting and keeping them in abeyance from making supply of bandage/gauze cloth to the Government.

¶10

The Hon’ble Single Judge passed interim directions in the writ petitions as under:

¶11

“(a) the 3^rd respondent shall cause inspection of the premises of the petitioner by issuing advance intimation and satisfy itself as to whether the actual manufacturing activity is going on as provided under G.O. Ms. No.1193, dt.29.8.1974.

¶12

(b) the tenders submitted by the petitioner in response to the ongoing tender process shall be received; and

¶13

(c) the processing of the tenders shall be only after it is found that the manufacturing activity is going on in the unit of the petitioner.”

¶14

Aggrieved by the said interim orders, appellant herein moved vacate stay applications. The Hon’ble Single Judge by the orders impugned in the writ appeals, observed that there was no ground to vacate the interim order at that stage, and made the interim order absolute. It was also observed that after making further inspection in terms of the order dt.18.6.2012, it is open for the respondents to process the tenders submitted by the writ petitioners. If it is noticed during the inspection that the petitioners are not engaged in the manufacturing activity in terms of the orders in G.O. Rt. No.675

¶15

dt.5.6.2006, it is open for the respondents to intimate the same to the petitioners. The inspection in terms of the order dt.18.6.2012 is to be made within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

¶16

Being aggrieved by the said orders passed in the vacate stay applications in W.P. Nos.17939, 17946, 17950 of 2012, W.A. Nos.1173, 1175 and 1197 are filed respectively.

¶17

When the appeals were initially listed, learned counsel for the parties requested the Court to take up writ petitions also along with the writ appeals. Thus, the writ appeals and the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that some of the relevant documents in the matter could not be produced by them before the authorities before taking a decision to blacklist them from supplying the goods required in the tender. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the said fact.

¶19

It further appears to us that an inspection was conducted by the Drug Inspector on behalf of the Drug Controller on 28.4.2012 just prior to the impugned order of blacklisting writ petitioners was passed by the appellant and the said inspection report was not placed before the appellant at the time of issuing orders blacklisting the writ petitioners. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents - writ petitioners to file a detailed representation before the authority concerned, annexing all the relevant documents to substantiate their claim that they are manufacturing units and are entitled to supply the goods as stated in the tender in question, and the said authority, after giving a chance of being heard to the writ petitioners, shall pass a reasoned order in the matter in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of filing the representation by the writ petitioners. The order so passed by the said authority shall be communicated to the writ petitioners within one week from the date of passing the order. We make it clear that the observations made by us or by the Hon’ble

¶20

Single Judge will not stand in the way of the said authority to decide the matter in question.

¶21

The writ appeals and the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly along with the applications seeking interim relief.

¶22

Applications filed in the writ petitions to receive additional material papers stand allowed.

¶23

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶24

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 3.10.2012 bnr

M/s Sri Lekha Industires, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Lekha Industires, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

D. Veeraswamy Vs The Govt. of a.P, Revenue Department

Forum for a Better Hyderabad, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

R. Navaneeth Kumar Vs The Commissioner

Pilli Suvarna Vs The District Collector

Mr. Ch. Umesh Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh, Health and Medical Housing and Vs Sri Laxmi Industries