Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh J. Shastri, JJ.
M/s. Stuti Pipes Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Chief Engineer, Material Cell (C), Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11949 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2022
ISO 9001-2008 - Challenge to Order - Circular dated 18.2.2022, Circular dated 5.10.2020, Vendor Selection Procedure, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the circulars and procedures related to testing of pipes, emphasizing the importance of authorized testing agencies and the requirement for joint inspection reports. The court highlighted the need for the authority to reconsider the decision based on the evidence presented and to provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity for explanation.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an ISO certified company, challenged the order debarring it from participating in tender processes for supplying pipes to GWSSB. The petitioner contended that the joint inspection report and authorized laboratory reports indicated no quality compromise in the supplied pipes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority's decision to debar the petitioner lacked proper consideration of the evidence and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the authority to reconsider the decision, providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity for explanation.
Issues: The issues involved the authority's decision to debar the petitioner based on the quality of supplied pipes, the consideration of evidence and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of proper consideration of evidence and violation of the principles of natural justice by the authority, leading to the direction for reconsideration of the decision.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider the decision with proper opportunity for the petitioner. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the issues raised.
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 (subsequently upgraded to 9001:2015), 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’) having registration from 23.9.2015, validity whereof is upto 31.12.2018, which was subsequently extended upto 31.12.2020 and further it was extended upto 25.4.2024 vide letter dated 27.4.2021.
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 20.5.2022.
3. According to petitioner, in view of the circular dated 18.2.2022, a joint inspection report is required to be obtained whenever there appears to be a dispute with regard to supply of pipes. Resultantly, such joint inspection report was prepared on 20.5.2022, signed by Research Assistant, GIRDA, Jr. Scientific Officer, GIRDA, Senior Scientific Officer, GIRDA, Assistant Manager, WASMO and Mr. Rasikhbhai Patel of the petitioner. It is the case of petitioner that on or after 30.3.2022, pipes have been supplied in various districts of State of Gujarat by petitioner through EPC Contractor for WASMO and no complaint was received of any nature with regard to its quality from any of the districts. For the purpose of indicating such, petitioner has attached certain copies at Annexure-H, consisting of order issued by respondent to EPC Contractor, e-invoices and way bills. It has been contended that except for Dahod district, and issue raised with respect to Dahod district was also within permissible limit of having variation of 1% only which could be due to lab to lab checking, still the petitioner replaced the pipes without any issue. 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 to be 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 contentions 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 of both the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides, matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Paras K. Sukhwani appearing on behalf of petitioner has vehemently contended that as per the requirement, a joint inspection report was also got prepared and same has been found positive and there is no indication with regard to quality compromise in respect of pipes and still ignoring such material as well as explanation offered by the petitioner, respondent authority has passed the order impugned in the petition. It has been pointed out that a joint inspection report reflecting at Annexure-G clearly indicates that all test results are positive; no indication of any negative result, can be seen from the said inspection report dated 20.5.2022 and said inspection report having been prepar
AI
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....
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 that the authority must consider all relevant circumstances and provide the affected party with a proper opportunity before passing a decision that....
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....
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....
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....
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.
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....
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
