Allowed

M/s Golconda Engineering Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India

Telangana HC3 Jul 2017WP/14985/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes a cryptic, reasonless order deleting a petitioner firm from an approved list for supplying electrical items. The High Court found the order violated natural justice and remanded it to the second respondent to pass a fresh order with reasons, ensuring compliance within four weeks. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the second respondent to pass a fresh order giving reasons within four weeks.

M/s Golconda Engineering Enterprises Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14985 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard both sides.

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking to set aside the impugned orders No.RDSO/ 2007/ QUAD/ 1171/ Vol.III, dated 16.08.2013 and RDSO/ 2007/ QS/ QUAD/ 1171/ Vol.IV, dated 29.04.2014, issued by the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the temporary delisting done on 16.08.2013, another notice came to be issued in which the petitioner submitted his explanation, but without considering the said representation, the authorities have passed a cryptic two line order, deleting the name of the petitioner Firm from the ‘approved list of Firms for manufacture and supply of Electrical Signaling and Telecommunication items’.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the said representation was considered by the authorities and the impugned orders came to be passed basing on the material placed therein.

¶8

Having regard to the rival submissions made and as the impugned order is bereft of any reasons, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for passing fresh orders giving reasons for deleting the name of the petitioner Firm from the ‘approved list of Firms for manufacture and supply of Electrical Signaling and Telecommunication items’, in accordance with law. It is needless to

¶9

¶10

CPK, J W.P.No.14985 of 2014

¶11

mention that the second respondent shall pass orders as early as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶12

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶15

03.07.2017 vhb

M/s Golconda Engineering Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Golconda Engineering Enterprises Ltd. 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

Pasupuleti Sri Krishna, Teacher, Vs The Director General of Police.

P. Anthoni and Ano. Vs Prl. Secy.,Home Dept. and 2 Ors.

Mrs. Arul Jothi Augustin, Vs The State of Telangana

Balajee college of Education, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J.V.S. Bhadrudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Venkateswara college of Education, Sponsered by Ponnuru Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal