Allowed

M/ s Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing Partnership v. Union of India

Telangana HC26 Aug 2021WP/12343/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging blacklisting orders imposed by the Food Corporation of India without assigning reasons. The High Court held that blacklisting orders are non-speaking and must contain reasons before imposing penalties such as blacklisting.

What did the court decide?

Impugned blacklisting orders set aside; matters remanded to respondents to consider cases afresh and pass orders giving opportunity.

M/ s Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing Partnership Vs Union… — Property and Title | 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 SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs. 11030 AND 12419 OF 2021

¶7

wRrT PET|TTON NO. 11030 0F 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Siva Sai Agencies, Plot No.189, Narayanapuram^{ColonyPoranki,Vii-ayawada} - 521 137 Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Proprietor Sri^Narra Sudheer S/o.Sri N.Sai Baba, Hindu, aged 42 years.

¶10

...pETlTlONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Food Corporation of lndia, Barakhamba^{Road, New Delhi Rep.byits} Chairman and Managing Director

¶13

The General Mana-gei, Food Corporation of^{lndia, RegionalOffice,Haca} Bhawan, lll Floor, Opp. Public Garden Road, Hyderabad,^Telangana

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{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 Dt.1610412021 as well as Termination^{Order No.S & C 13 (68y2020-} 22IPWS 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 for a period of three years with immediate effect besides forfeiture of EMD and security deposit as being illegal, arbitrary and against the^principles of natural^{justice as well} as against the Clause of Model Tender Form (MDF) and consequently to set aside the proceedings d1.1610412021 and allow the^petitioner to continue the Tender Work i.e. H & T Contract at PWS Nagunoor.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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

¶18

,--'z-

¶19

suspend the^{operationof the Proceedings in Lr'NoS & C 13 (68\12020-22|PWS} NGNR/Conts Dl-1610412021^{issued by the 2nd Respondent pendingdisposal of the} above writ Petition

¶20

IA NO: 2 0F 2021

¶21

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto SuspendtheoperationoftheTerminationorderNo.S&c13(68)12020.22IPWS NGNR/conts^{dt.31-12-2020issued 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

¶22

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI SUDHAKAR RAOAMBATI}

¶23

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

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 12419 OF 2021}

¶25

Between:

¶26

M/s. Lakshmi^{Narasimha warehousing,P-artnership,.leP:} 9y^{its Managing} Partner, Sri nousumilti^{tSiNV.iiqs.ao"@tam''S/b Venkata Ratnam'Aged} ;il;i';'41;;;, H;"ft^{ii. Hes'd.otrlie aYFlat No'120e' Block No'3'JvlvHome} -s-eruice Road, Puppalguda' Hyderabad' Telangana AviGr, Ndnir<iimgrl;^oRR State^- 500089.

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

AND

¶29

l.Unionoflndia,Rep.byitsSecretary,FoodCorporationoflndiaandAgriculture Dept., New Delhi.

¶30

z FJSJ'c"ii,biation ot^{lndia, Rep. bv its GeneralManag-er(Region)' Hvderabad} 5. E;;;ri;"'Dirdtior,^{rooobor6ioraiionof lndia, southZon'-'' chennai'}

¶31

..,RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lnclia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit fited therewith,the High Court maybe pleased} to issue a writ of^{Mandamus or any other appropriatewrit, orderor orders,} Direction or Directions to^{declare the proceedingsof the 2nd respondentdated} 15.05.2021 in Letter^{No.S & C 13(72yPWS Chityall2121-22lConts, wherebythe} petitioner has been blacklisted for^{a periodof three years, as illegal, arbitrary and}

¶33

---3

¶34

yiolative of Articles 14. 1 9 ,rr,n, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and to set aside the same and to direct,,.," respondents to act in accordance with law.

¶35

IA NO: 10 F 2021

¶36

petition under Sec the circumstances stated in the arridavit ,,,.0 ,n .,rjll ::',:':-o,],n,,n:r:i''' court may be preased to suspend the proceedings of the 2nd respondent .",u,''nn 1 3(72)/pWS Chityat/2020_22lconts, whereby rr" r";';:: ;:: :::T::;::lj a period of three years, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶37

IA :2 OF 1

¶38

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances .t"tuo in the affidavit filed in suppo of the petition' the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner in the e-Tender process under the e_Tender chitvat/2020-22lconts, dated 01.0s 202 1, pendins [::Hj-:, :t"'.;:*t

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI NAMAVARA assrsre^iifo1ff+5itH?[i." counser ror the Respond ent Nos 2 -'d::lBflT,Ji?lTA#Bii,;N

¶40

oF,ND,A

¶41

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶42

¶43

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} \'RIT PETITION^{Nos.1l030 ANDt2419 0F Z02l}

¶44

CO MMON ORDER:

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

For the sake of convenience,^{the facts in W.P.No l2419 of 2021} are discussed hereunder:

¶48

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

¶49

"to issue a^{Writof Manclamusor anyother appropriate} Writ, Order or Orders, Direction^{or I)irectionsto declare} the proceedings of^{the 2"d respondentdated 15 05.2021} in Letter No. S&C^{l3(72yPWS Chityall2l21-22lConts.} r.vhereby the petitioner has been^{blacklisted lbr a period} of three^years, as^{illegal, arbitlary and violative of} Articles I a. l9(^I )(g) and^{2 I of the Constitution ol' India} ancl to set aside the same^{andto directth(r respondcnts to} act in accordance^{rvithlatvand pass...."}

¶50

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

¶51

2 AKS. W.P.No.l 1030 & 12419 of 2021

¶52

for a period of three years vide impugned proceedings^dated 1 5.05.202 1 .

¶53

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^{respondentshave 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 subrritted^{that blacklistingorders have been passed} without assigning any reasons^{and with a crypticorder,the} respondents have blacklisted^{the petitioners, therefore,the impugned} orders are liable to^{be set asideonly on this short point. Counselalso} stated that the impugned^{order dated15.05.2021 clearly states that as} the petitioner's contract^{was already terminatedvlde 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^{tbr the petitioners that blacklistingshouldnot 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 faiied to fumish} bank guarantee^{and, for such a small lapse on the part of the} petitioners, the respondents^{cannotblacklist the petitioners without} assigning any reasons.

¶54

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

¶55

AKS,J w.P.No.l f030 & 12419 ol202l

¶56

¶57

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.

¶58

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned 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. 7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No order as to

¶59

costs.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSTSTANT#ctSTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 'l rhe chairman and Managing Director, Food corporation of rndia, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. 2. The General Manaoer, Food Corporation of lndia, Regional Office, Haca Bhawan, ilt Ftoor. oo; pubric^-Garde;-R;;; Hvo.jil;;, r;a;s;;r:,,,,'" . I:iB""ili,rry, rooo'corpoiition oirno'iaIhj'iiii.rltri" o"pi, ulion of tndia,

¶62

The General Manager ([egionJ, Food Corporation of lndia, Hv,ierabad. 5. rhe Executive Direitor, Ff"o qbfp"t6ii6ii;lffi: !"riii?,i.,J, Ef,lXX;r. 9. 9nu^{cC to Sri sudnakar Rao} Arfil, Air,iiji" tbpucf I 9n"^{CC to Sri Dominic rernanoei,} SlC. ii" ffiidtorporation of tndia tOpUCl 9 9ne^{CCto Smt. VedutaChitraternb,} norolatJlonuii^{"'-"'! " 'v'u rv, v\Jr} ?r. ?;3 33 Bj#l"^{r",a ra p u niiel n}.iniilndJit jnl,Soricitor Ge ne ra I ( o p u c ) '1 '1 . One Spare bopy.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610812021

COMMON ORDER

W.P.NOs. 11030 AND 12419 OF 2021

¶68

1nE Sr4 14:
oo 2 0 SEP 2021 o
!
*

¶69

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

<br>tnY

M/ s Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing Partnership v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/ s Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing Partnership 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

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.

Sri Siva Sai Agencies Vs The Food Corporation of India and Another

Bokka Sree Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

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