Allowed

Sri Siva Sai Agencies v. The Food Corporation of India and Another

Telangana HC26 Aug 2021WP/11030/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging blacklisting orders passed against two private contractors. It held that blacklisting orders are non-speaking orders passed without assigning reasons and set them aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned blacklisting orders set aside; matter remanded to respondents to consider cases afresh after giving opportunity.

Sri Siva Sai Agencies Vs The Food Corporation of India… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOs. 11030 AND 12419 OF 2021

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO. 11030 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Siva Sai Agencies, Plot No.189,^{NarayanapuramColonyPoranki,Vijayawada} - 521 137 Krlshna District, Andhra Pradesh^{Rep.by its ProprietorSri Narra} Sudheer S/o.Sri N.Sai Baba, Hindu,^{aged 42 years.}

¶9

...pETlTlONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Food Corporation of lndia,^{Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Rep.byits} Chairman and l\rlanaqing Director 2. The General Manatei Food^{Corporation of lndia, RegionalOffice, Haca} Bhawan, lll Floor, Opp. Puntic Garden^{Road, Hyderabad, Telangana.}

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue a writ order or direction^{more particularly one in the nature of a writ of} mandamus declaring the Proceedings in^{Lr.No.S &} C^{13 (68y2020-22/PWS} NGNR/Conts Dl.16tO4t2O21 as well as^{Termination Order No.S & C 13 (68y2020-} 22tPWS NGNR/conts d1.31-12-2020^{issued by the 2nd Respondent where under the} petitioner is de-bared from participating in any future tenders of^{the Corporation fora} period of three years with immediate effect besides forfeiture of EMD and security deposit as being illegal, arbitrary and against the^{principlesof natural justice as well} as against the Clause of Model Tender Form^(MDF) and^{consequentlyto set aside} the proceedings dt.1610412o21 and allow the^{petitionerto continue the Tender Work} i.e. H & T Contract at PWS Nagunoor.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to

¶16

,--Z'

¶17

suspend^{the operation of the Proceedings in Lr'NoS & C 13 (68)12020-22lPwS} NGNR/Conts^{Dl.16lO4l2O21issued by the 2nd Respondentpencing disposal of the} above writ Petition

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 21

¶19

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto suspend the^{operation of the TerminationOrder No'S & C 13 (68y2020-22/PWS} NGNR/conts d1.31-12-2020^{issued by the 2ndRespondent and continue the petitioner} to execute the^{work i.e. H T contract at PWS Nagunoor pending disposalof the} above writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRISUDHAKAR RAOAMBATI}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Respondents:SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES'} S.C. FOR FOOD^{CORPORATION OF INDIA}

¶22

WRIT PETITION^{NO :1.241I OF 2021}

¶23

Between:

¶24

M/s. Lakshmi^{Narasimha warehousing,P_artnership,. r.ep,} Py^{its Managing} irr-'tn"r, Sii Aor.rr!'iri^{vsirlVfr-r-t:o"@ Ramu,s/b venkataRatnam'Aged} ;;;;i 441";;a,^{Hruin*s iis Hego- ottice aT Flat No 120e' Block No 3'Jr/v Home} Aviiar, u;natrimgudr"^{oRn strviceRoad,Puppalguda, Hyderabad, Telangana} State - 500089.

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

Union of lndia, Rep.^{by its Secretary, Food Corporationof lndia and Agriculture} Deot., New Delhi. z FJSJ'ciii,'"Ltion ot^{tndia, Rep. by its Generat Manag_er(Re^gion),Hyderabad.} 3. Executive Director,^{Food Corporation of lndia, South zone' unennar'}

¶28

..,RESPONDENTS

¶29

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe pleased} to issue a writ of^{Mandamusor any other appropriatewrit, orderor orders,} Direction or Directions^{to declare the proceedingsof the 2nd respondentdated} 15.05.2021 in Letter^{No.S & C 13(72yPWSChityall2l2j-Z2lConts,wherebythe} petitioner has been blacklisted for a^{period of three years, as illegal, arbitrary and}

¶30

¶31

--3

¶32

yiolative of Articles 14. 1 S

¶33

r,n, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and to set aside the same and to direct ,n",,r respondents to act in accordance with law.

¶34

A o: 1 OF 20 1

¶35

petition under Sec ," rhe circumstances stated in the arridavit ,,,"0 ,n .,ojll ::',:']jn::::,,,:i court may be preased to suspend the proceedings of the 2nd respondent .",".''nn 1 3 (1 2) t pw s c hity a, 20 2 o _ 22lco n ts, wh e reb y,^ ", J,,:t;:: ;:: :::T:";:,": i": a period of three years, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶36

IA :2 OF 2

¶37

petition under Section 1 S l CpC praying tha t in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner in the e-Tender process under the e_Tender chity at / 20 2 0 22lco nts, dated 0 1 . 05. 2 02 1, pend ins ff : : :"-:, :r",,r,,::*.

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner; SRI VEDULA CHTTRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI NAMAVARI

¶39

Asstdi;ilitlo1ffiffiT[tE$f."'

¶40

counserrorthe Respond e n t N o s 2 -';. ::l8i T,$"o LT,if,ip^.,i,

¶41

N o F, N D, A "

¶42

The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER

¶43

¶44

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} WRIT PETITT ON^{\os.l1030A\I) I2.ll9 OF 2021}

¶45

OM ON RDER:

¶46

Both these writ^{petitionsare being disposed of by this common} order as the issue^{raised in these writ petitionsis one and the same'}

¶47

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas^{and Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati,} counsel for the^{petitioners,and Sri DominicFernandes,Standing} Counsel for the respondents'

¶48

3 . For the sake of convenience,^{the facts in W.P.No.I 241 9 of 2021} are discussed hereunder:

¶49

(a) W.P.No.12419 of 2020 is filed^{seeking the following relief:}

¶50

"to issue a Writ of Manclamus or^{anyothcrappropriatc} Writ, Order or Orders.^{Direction or Directions to declare} the proceedings of^{the 2"d respondentdated 15.05'2021} in Letter No. S&C l3(72yPWS^{Chityall2j2j-22lConts,} r.vhereby the petitioncr has been^{blacklisted lbr a period} ol three^years, as^{illegal, arbitrary and violative of} nrticles I a. l9(^I Xg) and^{2 I of the Constitution of India} and to set aside the^{same and to direct the respondcntsttr} act in accordance^{rvithlau'and pass...."}

¶51

(b) It has been contended by^{the petitionerthat it was entrusted} with handling contract^{vide proceed\ngs dated 28.10.2020'It is also} stated that owing^{to variousreasons,the petitioner could not fumish} bank guarantee^{in terms of tender conditions and its \4'ork order was} terminated vide^{proceedings,dated 31.12.2020, and the respondents} have also blacklisted^{the petitioner from participatingin future tenders}

¶52

2 AKS,J w.P.No.ll030 & 12419 of 2021

¶53

for a period of three years vide impugned^{proceedingsdated} 15.05.2021 .

¶54

Counsel for the^petitioners in both these writ^petitions contended that for failure to fumish bank^{guarantee, the respondents} have terminated the contract of the^{petitioners,however while} terminating the contract, the respondents^{have also blacklistedthe} petitioners from participating in future^{tenders for a period of three} years vide orders dated 16.04.2021 and^{15.05.2021, respectively'} Counsel further sublnitted^{that blacklistingorders have beenpassed} without assigning any reasons and^{with a crypticorder, the} respondents have blacklisted^{the petitioners, therefore,the impugned} orders are liable to be^{set aside only on this short point. Counselalso} stated that the impugned^{order dated 15.05.2021 clearly states that as} the petitioner's contract^{was already terminatedvide proceedings} dated 31.12.2020 and^{having lost the case before the Grievance} Redressal Committee,^{the petitioner was blacklisted. It is further} stated by the counsel^{lor the petitioners that blacklistingshould not be} mechanically imposed^{and the entire case of the petitionershas to be} considered. Counsel^{also contendedthat the petitioners have not} indulged in any illegal^{activities, but they have only failed to furnish} bank guarantee^{and, for such a small lapseon the part of the} petitioners, the respondents^{cannotblacklist the petitioners without} assigning any reasons'

¶55

Sri Dominic Fernandes,^{StandingCounsel for the respondents'} has contended that the^{clause in the tender conditionsitselfstatesthat}

¶56

AKS,J W.P.No.l l030 & 124)9 of202l

¶57

¶58

whoever fails to furnish bank guarantee, their contracts will be terminated and, in addition to termination of contracts, they will also be blacklisted in accordance with law, therefore, there are no merits and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶59

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by leamed counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that blacklisting orders are non-speaking orders and without assigning any reasons. Therefore, on this point alone, the impugned orders of blacklisting are liable to be set aside and they are, accordingly, set aside. The matters are remanded back to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh, after giving opportunity, and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period of time.

¶60

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No order as to

¶61

costs.

¶62

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶63

//TRUE COPY// SDIT.I(RISHNAKUMAR ASSISTANEEGISTRAR
SIECTIONOFFICER To,
lThechairmanandManaging Director, Foodcorporailonofrndia,Barakhamba Road,New Delhi. 2.TheGeneralManager,FoodCorporationoflndia,RegionalOffice,Haca Bhawan,,tFtoor.ooi^pubticcaG[-noio,Hyd.i;;;;b,i;il;i;;;r:,',*,'^,.. 3.TheSeilgrarv,rboa'corpoiJto"oiiriiia-iho'iJii.rrtri"oeo[,unionofrndia,
4.The General Manaoer(RegionJ,Food Corporationoflndia,Hyderabad. 5.TheE-x_ecutiveDireitor,rf,iro cbiporat,o-n'";'t;ili,louthZone,Chennai 9.9n"^{ccto SrisudhakdrRaoar6a1i,}AiirJdjiiii6iuci I9nu^{cctosriDominicrernanoei,}5.c.ti"il6dtorporationofrndiatopUCl 9.9n"^{CCto Smt. VedutaChitraterni,}novolatJionuii^{-'-"i"'!v'!urv'vvr} ?,?;S3Bb"":i:l"rrvarapu^{niJeiriw"iniilXd":.u-nl,soricitorGenerar(opuc)} 11.One SpareCopy.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610812021

COMMON ORDER

W.P.NOs. 11030 AND 12419 OF 2021

¶69

1rlE s f4 14:
e
o
2 0 SEP 20?l o
-!
* *
:^^ --

¶70

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

<br>tD),,|
:+--.-..-.---.-...

Sri Siva Sai Agencies v. The Food Corporation of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siva Sai Agencies v. The Food Corporation of India and Another

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

Sri Sama Veera Venkta Satyanarayana Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

G. Naveen Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana

A. Rahaman Vs State of T.S.

Bokka Sree Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

M/ s Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing Partnership Vs Union of India

M/s. Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing, Partnership Vs Union of India and 2 Others