Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
M/s Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Telangana State Medical Services & Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P. No. 16756 of 2023
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Mandamus - Pharmaceutical Products - Tender Document No. 4E(2)/ TSMSIDC/ EQU/2020-21 - Clause 13.5 - The court set aside the impugned order as it violated principles of natural justice and tender conditions. The petitioner's case did not fall under the circumstances for blacklisting or debarment as per the tender clauses. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of Pharmaceutical Products, entered into an agreement with the respondent for the supply of medicines under a Rate Contract. The respondent delayed signing the agreement, and the petitioner made supplies despite pending payments. The respondent issued a show cause notice for delay in supplies and subsequently declared the petitioner as an undependable supplier for a period of 2 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and tender conditions. The petitioner's case did not fall under the circumstances for blacklisting or debarment as per the tender clauses. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in supplies, pending payments, and the respondent's declaration of the petitioner as an undependable supplier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was passed without assigning reasons, without considering the petitioner's explanation, and in violation of principles of natural justice and tender conditions. The show cause notice did not indicate any intention to blacklist the petitioner, and the order was wholly cryptic.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order, stating that the petitioner could not have been declared as an undependable supplier for a period of 2 years. The court found a clear violation of tender conditions pertaining to payments and deductions.
ORDER :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus by setting aside (a) the Order bearing Lr. No. Spl/Medicine Wing/Ph3/2022-23 dated 20.01.2023 issued by the Respondent herein declaring the Petitioner as “Unreliable and Undependable Supplier” and banning the Petitioner to participate for a period of 2 years, i.e. from 19.01.2023 to 18.01.2025 in the future tenders of the Telangana State Medical Services & Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad (TSMSIDC) and setting aside the (b) listing of the Petitioner Company in the blacklisted companies vide Statement Showing List of Firms Blacklisted for the period from 19.01.2023 to 18.01.2025 and also by directing the Respondent to release the sum of Rs. 70,70,721/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Twentyone) along with applicable interest as also demanded in the Letter Dated 19.06.2023 by the Petitioner, while holding the impugned orders as per (a) (b) as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
b) An agreement dated 04.07.2022, for the supply of (Drugs) / Medicines was executed between the petitioner and the Respondent, pursuant to the aforesaid Rate Contract and the Tender Document, in terms of the procurement of Medicines and General Medicines & Medicines for Schemes, whereby certain medicines were specified along with the specifications and rate per unit.
c) While the Respondent delayed signing of the Agreement dated 04.07.2022, the petitioner made supplies to the Respondent immediately after signing of the Tender Documents and Rate Contract dated 01.10.2020.
d) Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 30.09.2022 to the Managing Director of the Respondent requesting for the completion of the Agreement process as per Tender Document and clearly informed that after the issuance of the PO, the Petitioner will neither accept nor process the PO (Purchase Order) without completion of the Agreement process, because pending amount of Rs.86,16,962/- is to be cleared by the Respondent and the Petitioner has also sent the list of pending invoices stating that the petitioners cannot supply the material on time without receiving the pending dues.
e) On 10.10.2022, the petitioner sent a Reminder-1 email with respect to the earlier communication dated 30.09.2022. On 29.10.2022, the respondent sent an email enclosing the list of Drugs with PO details and the maximum permissible delivery dates as mentioned in the PO. However, on 31.10.2022, the petitioner sent an email to the respondent stating their concern regarding pending payments and also informed that immediate steps for supply of all pending order will be done once pending payment are cleared.
f) On 01.11.2022, an email was sent to the Respondent requesting to complete the agreement obligations as per tender conditions and also requested about the pending payment for more than 15 months i.e., to a tune of Rs.86,16,962/-. However, after a lot of follow up, the respondent released an amount of Rs.15,15,853/- on 02.11.2022 and the same was reflected in the bank statement.
g) Subsequently, the respondent sent a show cause notice dated 02.12.2022 alleging that the Petitioner had failed to execute purchase orders within the scheduled period of timelines and directed the Petitioner to initiate supplies immediately and the petitioner through a reply dated 21.12.2022 informed about t
The impugned order violated principles of natural justice and tender conditions, leading to its setting aside by the court.
The principles of natural justice require that a party be given a fair opportunity to defend itself against allegations made against it. This includes the right to receive a copy of the evidence agai....
Failure to comply with tender conditions warrants legal blacklisting, with no arbitrariness in authority's decisions.
A debarment order is not justified if the party being debarred has not violated any contractual obligations, the apprehensions of the other party are not material considerations, the debarment order ....
The decision to blacklist a contractor must follow due process and communicate the intended action clearly in the show cause notice. Non-supply of essential goods during a pandemic can justify blackl....
Point of law : Before proposing to pass a black listing order or debarring orders the parties had to be given hearing followed by an appropriate reasoned order.
Point of Law : Order to fulfill the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice should meet the twin requirements viz. [i] the material/grounds to be stated which according to ....
Tender clauses permit EMD forfeiture and contract cancellation without notice for failing performance security; debarment requires specific prior show cause notice per natural justice principles due ....
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
