9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.08.2015) issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. to its Medical and Health Department, directing it to stop local purchase from the appellant. Daffodills had participated in a tender process, in which the state called for bids from interested parties, willing to supply various categories of pharmaceutical products. The successful bidder was required to supply medicines to various hospitals, under the control of the Medical and Health Department, U.P. for one year. Daffodills was one amongst 56 bidders; its bid was acceptable to the respondent, i.e. State of U.P. 3. Daffodills was asked to match its previous bid to the Tamil Nadu Service Corporation Ltd. for the year 2015-16, at approved L1 rates, on or before, 29.05.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict action would be taken as per rules against him." 5. Complaining of arbitrariness on various grounds, (including that the impugned direction not to procure or purchase medicines issued against it, was on a mistaken assumption that a criminal case was pending against it), Daffodills submitted that the criminal case was filed against one Mr. Surender Chaudhary, an erstwhile Director, who had ceased to have any connection with it (i.e. Daffodills) from 22.02.2012. Besides, it was argued that the decision not to procure, amounted to blacklisting and that it was issued without notice or predecisional hearing and was consequently liable to be set aside. 6. In the impugned order, the High Court recalled a previous direction in other proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contract and/or to commit breach of the said terms resulting into failure to commence/execute the work or supply the items as per specification as stipulated in the agreement or giving the performance that does not meet the statutory requirements of the contract or the action of the petitioner is reported against the provisions and against the interest of the State, the Department has a right to regulate its business through various directions to State Agencies in which the petitioner has no right to interfere. 8. It is argued on behalf of Daffodills that the impugned decision is erroneous because the High Court overlooked a salient aspect, i.e. Surender Chaudhary has resigned as Director, way back in 2012. Therefore, his being implicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel submitted that having regard to these facts, the order made by the Principal Secretary (on 21.08.2015) was only a direction to not procure medicines locally from the appellant; it could not be characterized as a debarring or blacklisting order. It was pointed out that the appellant had filed a suit in 2014, seeking a direction not to finalize the tender for which it had bid; furthermore, the order dated 21.08.2015 was made pursuant to the directions of the court. Consequently, the appellant could have no grievance against it. 10. Daffodills had bid for the contract, (as is evident from the factual narration), to supply various categories of medicines to the Health Department of the State of U.P. One of the terms of the tender condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odills for an indefinite duration. Unlike a "normal" blacklisting order which has a finite life span (of three or maximum five years), the indefinite directive (which appears to be co-terminus with the lifetime of the criminal case) is facially far more disproportionate than a blacklisting order. Even as on date, it is not clear whether formal charges have been framed against the accused i.e. Surender Chaudhary. 14. The decisions in Erusian Equipments and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal 1975 (1) SCC 70 and Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors 1989 (1) SCC 229 as well as later Decisions Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 699; Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,(2001) 8 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition." 15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State resorted to- against Daffodils, which was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
