Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh J. Shastri, JJ.
M/s. Vasani Polymers Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Chief Engineer, Material Cell (C), Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11952 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2022
ISO 9001-2008 - Challenge to Order - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - [Annexure-L, Annexure-H, Clause 13 of Vendor Selection Procedure, Circular dated 5.10.2020] - The court considered the joint inspection report, circulars, and the notice issued to the petitioner, and found that the authority had not considered all relevant circumstances before passing the impugned order. The court quashed the order and directed the authority to reconsider the decision, providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity and passing a fresh order with reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ISO 9001-2008 certified company, challenged the order debarring it from participating in tender processes for a year due to alleged inferior quality of supplied pipes. The petitioner contended that the pipes had been replaced and that the authority had not considered the joint inspection report and other relevant circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority had not considered all relevant circumstances before passing the impugned order and quashed the order, directing the authority to reconsider the decision and pass a fresh order with reasons.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority's failure to consider all relevant circumstances before passing the impugned order and the petitioner's contention that it had not been given a proper opportunity to explain and clarify the situation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the authority to consider all relevant circumstances and provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity before passing the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the authority to reconsider the decision, providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity and passing a fresh order with reasons.
ORDER :
(Aravind Kumar, J.)
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order passed by respondent authority dated 18.6.2022.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of present petition are that petitioner is a ISO 9001-2008, a certified company and is being represented by its authorized representative in the present proceedings and it has been contended that petitioner company has successfully completed several projects in the State of Gujarat without any complaints and it is a reputed company and an approved Vendor of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘GWSSB’) and having registration from 22.10.2014, validity whereof is upto 31.12.2017, which was extended upto 31.12.2019 vide letter dated 24.1.2018, which was again extended upto 11.2.2022 vide letter dated 20.2.2019 and thereafter, it was extended upto 27.9.2024 vide letter dated 6.10.2021.
Petitioner was issued with various purchase orders from EPC Contractors for supply of various diameter of pipes. Petitioner was intimated by respondent the some of the samples failed as per report of CIPET. New samples from field were sent by GR Field Officer for lab re-testing and result of same disclosed positive or no failure vide report dated 16.3.2022 (Annexure-H).
3. Pursuant to various purchase orders received from EPC Contractor, the pipes of various diameters were supplied for District Dahod and Bhuj. The respondent issued notice dated 25.3.2022, by referring letter No.2608 dated 9.3.2022 of Chief Engineer, WASMO, intimating that some samples failed as per sample report of CIPET and called upon the petitioner to submit explanation/ clarification within five days, as to why punitive action should not be initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner vide letter dated 30.3.2022 informed the respondent that pipes are lifted from field and replaced by new pipes with new batch numbers and it was assured that utmost care is taken while procuring the pipes and shift-wise random analysis is done at its end before dispatching pipes to site. It has been averred that from all samples returned pipes, all samples have been retested and found positive. So, there is no issue regarding inferior quality. It is further averred that for Dahod, the respondent directed EPC Contractor to replace the pipes and accordingly, petitioner replaced the pipes without any issue. So far as Bhuj district is concerned, the Unit Manager of WASMO by letter dated 4.3.2022 requested GIRDA to carry out retest of pipes and accordingly, the pipes were retested jointly with GIRDA on 16.3.2022 and the rest results were positive and the proper pipes were supplied accordingly.
4. A joint inspection report was prepared on 16.3.2022, was signed by Research Assistants, GIRDA, Senior Scientific Officer, GIRDA, Director, GIRDA and the other witnesses. It is further averred in the petition that on 30.3.2022, for the period between 1.4.2022 to 20.6.2022, pipes of various diameters for 774 km have been supplied for various districts of Gujarat State through EPC contractor for respondent and WASMO and there is no complaint whatsoever about the quality of pipes supplied by the petitioner.
5. Pursuant to notice having been issued, petitioner submitted its detailed reply on 30.3.2022. But despite same having been explained at length, vide order dated 18.6.2022, name of petitioner came to be removed from the list of approved vendors of GWSSB and petitioner has been debarred from participating in any tender process invited either by GWSSB or by GWIL or WASMO for a period of one year from date of issue of impugned order dated 18.6.2022. Petitioner has questioned this decision by raising multiple grounds in the present petition and based upon such facts, being pointed out, at initial stage, Court issued notice to respondent on 30.6.2022, who has appeared and a reply affidavit has been filed. Since pleadings are complete, upon request
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority must consider all relevant circumstances and provide the affected party with a proper opportunity before passing a decision that....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the authority to consider lab testing results, provide natural justice, and offer proper opportunity and reasons in its deci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the authority to consider evidence and provide a proper opportunity for explanation, ensuring the principles of natural justice....
Mere existence of a Clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the sho....
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's firm in the technical bid for procurement of GI Pipes, emphasizing that the decision-making process was reasonable and not arbitrary, and that the c....
Since there is no specific direction that their decision must be only in a particular manner, the respondents 1 to 3 have a right to take a decision of their choice either in granting or refusing the....
The absence of a work order does not negate the enforceability of a claim for services rendered, especially when supported by adequate documentation corroborating the transaction.
Writ courts should not interfere with show-cause notices unless they are issued without jurisdiction or constitute an abuse of process. Administrative authorities must be allowed to conclude the inve....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
