Partly allowed

M/s. Maitreya Electricals (P) Ltd., v. Vijayawada Muncipal Corporation

Telangana HC9 Dec 2015WP/39785/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged forfeiture of EMD and debarment from tenders in a municipal contract. Court held writ jurisdiction unavailable for non-statutory contract disputes regarding forfeiture. Debarment order set aside for lack of showcause notice, requiring fresh order after notice.

What did the court decide?

Debarment from tender participation set aside; liberty to respondent to issue showcause notice and pass fresh order.

M/s. Maitreya Electricals (P) Ltd., Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.39785 of 2015 Dated 09.12.2015

¶3

Between: M/s.Maitreya Electricals (P) Ltd., Vijayawada rep. by its Managing Director Sri PVSN.Prasad

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

and

¶6

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner Vijayawada and 4 others

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.G.Narendra Chetty

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

O r d e r :

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceeding in Rc.EO-148515/2008, dated 02-11-2015, of respondent No.3, whereby he has forfeited a sum of Rs.1,99,993/- towards EMD and withheld amounts with the right to recover the same from the pending bills of the petitioner relating to other contracts with respondent No.1 or other

¶12

Departments and also debarred the petitioner from participation in tenders for a period of two years.

¶13

I have heard Mr.G.Narendra Chetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.T.Balaswamy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1Corporation.

¶14

As regards the forfeiture of EMD and withheld amounts, the impugned order shows that despite several requests made by the respondents, the petitioner has failed to energise the 500 KVA transformer erected at Kabela DP Station and that therefore, the Executive Authority vide its Note Orders, dated 24-10-2015, ordered to forfeit the EMD, FSD and the withheld amounts due to the petitioner.

¶15

With regard to the above aspect, this Court is of the opinion that as this dispute arises out of a nonstatutory contract, this Court would not adjudicate the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner is relegated to the common law remedies available to it.

¶16

As regards the petitioner’s debarment from participation in tenders, the case was adjourned on 08-12-2015, to enable the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1Corporation to obtain instructions as to whether a showcause notice proposing such debarment was issued to the petitioner. Today, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that no such showcause notice was issued.

¶17

I n Eurasian Equipment & Chemicals

¶18

Ltd.Vs.State of West Bengal and An r^[1] . , the Supreme Court held that an order of blacklisting must be necessarily preceded by a showcause notice, for, such an order results in serious adverse civil consequences to the contractor. As the petitioner, admittedly, failed to follow this mandatory procedure, the part of the impugned order whereby the petitioner was debarred from participating in the tenders is set aside, however, with liberty to respondent No.3 to issue a showcause notice and pass a fresh order.

¶19

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶20

As a sequel, WPMP.No.51347 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶22

Dt: 9^th December, 2015 LUR

¶23

[1] 1 975 (1) SCC 70

M/s. Maitreya Electricals (P) Ltd., v. Vijayawada Muncipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Maitreya Electricals (P) Ltd., v. Vijayawada Muncipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aallahari Siva Durga Prasad S/o Rama Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yeluri Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Rajani, Vs Peddapalli Nagar Panchayat

Mr. T.V.K. Murthy S/o Sri. T.G.K. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana - Rep. by its Principal

Smt. Bolukonda Kalavathi, W/o.Late Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Kareem Khan Vs Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation