HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
M/S. P S ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY SYED NAJMUDDIN – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner failed to comply (Para 2) |
| 2. no notice issued (Para 10) |
| 3. debarment requires notice (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner firm was awarded the contract to operate a catering stall at the Thrissur Railway Station. As per Ext.P7 letter of award (‘LOA’), the petitioner was obliged to deposit the license fee and security deposit within 15 days from the date of the LOA. Surprisingly, by Ext.P8 communication, the Railway administration cancelled the LOA, forfeited the earnest money deposit (‘EMD’) and debarred the petitioner from participating in all the upcoming tenders of the respondents for five years. No show cause notice or termination notice was issued to the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. Even though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P9 representation before the 4th respondent, there was no response. The actions of the respondents are arbitrary and unjustifiable.
Hence, the writ petition.
2. The Central Government Counsel has filed a statement on behalf of the respondents stating that paragraph 3.5.2, Section B, Chapter 2 of Ext.P6 tender notification, expressly provides that if the selected bidder does not s
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.