Back
2015 Supreme(Megh) 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
S. R. SEN, J.
Dynamic Shells India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Petitioners
Vrs.
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WP (C) No. 76 & 77 of 2013
Decided On : 19.06.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.F. Qureshi & Mr S.S. Sisodia, Advs.
For the Respondent s: Mr. K. Paul, CGC
The court's decision was based on the need for proper investigation and the consideration of the petitioner's past record in determining the quantum of punishment.
Headnote:
ORDER : Blacklisting - Contract Dispute - The court declined to interfere with the petition, directing the respondents to consider the quantum of punishment, taking into consideration the past record of the petitioner if any representation is filed within the framework of rules and laws.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, manufacturers of weatherproof prefabricated PVC shelters, were commissioned to supply and erect shelters for the respondents. The petitioners were accused of submitting a forged bank guarantee and were subsequently blacklisted by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere with the petition, directing the respondents to consider the quantum of punishment, taking into consideration the past record of the petitioner if any representation is filed within the framework of rules and laws.
Issues: Allegations of forged bank guarantee, blacklisting of the petitioners, and the need for proper enquiry before blacklisting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the serious allegation involved in the case and the ongoing investigation. The court directed the respondents to consider the quantum of punishment, taking into consideration the past record of the petitioner if any representation is filed within the framework of rules and laws.
Final Decision: Both WP(C) No. 76 of 2013 and WP(C) No. 77 of 2013 were disposed of with no order as to costs.
When the matters came up for hearing WP(C) No. 76 of 2013 and WP(C) No. 77 of 2013 are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order as the parties as well as the issues involved are the same. The brief fact of the case in WP(C) No. 76 of 2013 is that:
“The Petitioner is the manufacturer of weatherproof prefabricated PVC shelters, the product is patended and one of the best shelters available in World market. The state of art manufacturing unit is situated Bawal, Distt: Rewari (Haryana). These shelters are being supplied to various Military, Para Military Forces, State Govts, Civil Authorities and in public market. However, Petitioner was commissioned as a Contractor to supply and erect above mentioned shelter for the Respondents by way of a Tender floated by the Respondent Assam Rifles. The Petitioner had complied with all the requirements of the Respondents in order to commence work on the said contract which also included furnishing of a performance guarantee from a nationalized or scheduled bank. However, at a later stage, in connivance with certain dubious competitors and business, certain elements within the Respondent Organisation conceived and floated rumors of forgery and wrong doing against the Petitioner and alleging a Bank Guarantee as above mentioned to be forged, got the Petitioner black listed and its supply orders cancelled. The Petitioner has been representing to the Respondents since then and has been offering to furnish fresh Bank Guarantee to the Respondents. However, the Petitioner’s representation have not been considered by the Respondents due to undue pressure from the competitors, hence, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court”.
The brief fact of the case in WP(C) No. 77 of 2013 is that:
“The Petitioner is the supplier of weatherproof prefabricated PVC shelters, the product is patended and one of the best shelters available in World market. The state of art manufacturing unit is situated Bawal, Distt:: Rewari (Haryana). These shelters are being supplied to various Military, Para Military Forces, State Govts, Civil Authorities and in public market. However, Petitioner was commissioned as a Contractor to supply and erect above mentioned shelter for the Respondents by way of a Tender floated by the Respondent Assam Rifles. The Petitioner had complied with all the requirements of the Respondents in order to commence work on the said contract which also included furnishing of a performance guarantee from a nationalized or scheduled bank. However, at a later stage, in connivance with certain dubious competitors and business, certain elements within the Respondent Organisation conceived and floated rumors of forgery and wrong doing against the Petitioner and alleging a Bank Guarantee as above mentioned to be forged, for the Petitioner black listed and its supply orders cancelled. The Petitioner has been representing to the Respondents since then and has been offering to furnish fresh Bank Guarantee to the Respondents. However, the Petitioner’s representation have not been considered by the Respondents due to undue pressure from the competitors, hence, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court”.
2. Mr. M.F. Qureshi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the allegation against the petitioner was that, the petitioner has submitted a forged bank guarantee of Syndicate Bank to the respondents/Assam Rifles. As a result, the petitioner has been blacklisted from the lists of contractors of the Assam Rifles. The learned counsel raised a question that, no loss has been caused to the respondents, besides that, no proper enquiry was conducted before blacklisting the petitioner. The learned counsel also argued that, the petitioner was blacklisted on 02.11.2011 and the FIR was filed only on 01.04.2013. So, necessary directions may be issued.
3. On the other hand,
