Back
ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Stuti Pipes Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Chief Engineer, Material Cell (C), Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board – Respondent
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
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
