The removal of a supplier from an approved list without notice violates natural justice principles, especially when it leads to severe civil consequences.

ORDER

The petitioner herein seeks issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent herein to reverse/annul the impugned arbitrary de-listing of the petitioner from List of suppliers/vendors in the Unified Vendor Approval Module (UV AM) on the website of the 1 st respondent and consequently permit the petitioner to participate in the present and future tenders.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a company engaged in manufacturing of sheet metal, stainless steel, Mild Steel Aluminium Fabrication works of side-walls, Roof, under frames and shell kits, Cold Roll Forming and Tube Mill, FRP Components, Seats and Interior furnishings for Rolling stocks etc., basically required for Railway Coaches. The petitioner has been successfully supplying its products to the production units of the Indian Railways for the past 10 years. In the year 2021, the first respondent introduced the system of (UV AM) in the Indian Railways E-procurement system to streamline and enhance the supplier approval process within the Indian Railways. One of the primary eligibility condition for supplying products to the production units of the railways is the inclusion in the approved list of suppliers in (UV AM). The petitioner has been included in the list of approved vendors under (UV AM) due to its qualification and adherence to the required standards since 2021 for certain products and supplies to the Indian Railways. Due to the petitioner's inclusion in the list of approved vendors, it is in a position to participate in the various tenders floated by the second respondent all these years. Suddenly it was found on 30.10.2024 that the second respondent unilaterally delisted the petitioner from the approved list of suppliers in (UV AM) portal. The said delisting by the second respondent was done without any prior notice /intimation or opportunity to the petitioner. As the de-listing of the petitioner from the approved list of suppliers effectively disabled the petitioner from participating in the tenders floated by the second respondent, the petitioner has come before this Court, seeking the above directions terming the said action as arbitrary and violation of natural justice principles.

3. The respondents herein filed counter and opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner company involved in corrupt practice by colluding with one A.K.Kathpal, the then Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer/Integral Coach Factory and hence an FIR has been registered against the petitioner by Central Bureau of Investigation in FIR No.RC AC-1 2021A0005, dated 05.07.2021. It is the specific case of the respondents as seen from the counter affidavit that the deponent of the writ affidavit in her capacity as Director of the petitioner's company attempted to pay illegal gratifications to the high ranking official of second respondent. It is also stated that after investigation, a charge sheet was filed arraying the petitioner and the deponent of the writ affidavit as the accused Nos.2 and 6 and the criminal case is pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge PC Act, CBI, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Court. Therefore, on the advice of the Railway Board, the second respondent removed the name of the petitioner from the approved list of suppliers pending consideration of proposal for black-listing of the petitioner. The second respondent relying on the circular issued by the Railway Board in letter No.2021/RS (G)/779/17 (E3380016), dated 09.11.2022 removed the petitioner from the approved list pending consideration of its proposal for de-listing by the Railway Board. It is also stated that necessary proposal for de-listing of the petitioner will be forwarded to Stores Directorate of Railway Board to process the black-listing. It is also stated that the stores directorate of railway board will examine the second respondent proposal, issue show cause notice to the petitioner and then take a final decision on the black-listing. There