w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) v/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD [Active] CIN = U10101WB1975GOI030295

Company & Directors' Information:- SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U10102CT1985GOI003161

Company & Directors' Information:- SOUTH INDIA CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102TN1935PTC002652

Company & Directors' Information:- M S C TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64201DL2002PLC115040

Company & Directors' Information:- R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007DL1998PTC093644

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC105957

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PLC034058

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- S D M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219KA2013PTC070117

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1990PTC056999

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00367KA1988PTC009651

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2002PTC113742

Company & Directors' Information:- C V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52311CH2013PTC034790

Company & Directors' Information:- R G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2000PTC106267

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP E- TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2012PTC088633

Company & Directors' Information:- L A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2010PTC209195

Company & Directors' Information:- N R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900GJ2000PTC038010

Company & Directors' Information:- H R TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52603MH2003PTC138635

Company & Directors' Information:- C S A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1996PTC037105

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC104023

Company & Directors' Information:- S B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2015PTC097640

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA1997PTC022565

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1999PTC118353

Company & Directors' Information:- V V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300HR2008PTC037950

Company & Directors' Information:- S W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74140DL1970PTC005326

Company & Directors' Information:- B A TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PLC143775

Company & Directors' Information:- J TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2000PLC009315

Company & Directors' Information:- J N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC050546

Company & Directors' Information:- J V D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC157334

Company & Directors' Information:- J K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC108155

Company & Directors' Information:- I E M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2008PTC187513

Company & Directors' Information:- D. A. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC173738

Company & Directors' Information:- K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC150457

Company & Directors' Information:- D. L. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175475

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33112UP2001PTC026185

Company & Directors' Information:- R P J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP1994PTC016135

Company & Directors' Information:- S J R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC185244

Company & Directors' Information:- E M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141257

Company & Directors' Information:- D W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400HR2010PTC041610

Company & Directors' Information:- V INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069066

Company & Directors' Information:- R K H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106586

Company & Directors' Information:- M C A TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2003PTC143446

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 D TECHNOLOGIES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2010PTC208798

Company & Directors' Information:- V M B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2009PTC015638

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y 5 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP2010PTC039514

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC199124

Company & Directors' Information:- V J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC163641

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- L B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC124946

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035189

Company & Directors' Information:- R V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2007PTC053614

Company & Directors' Information:- V T S TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1996PLC036728

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52335PB2009PTC032939

Company & Directors' Information:- V N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2006PTC061056

Company & Directors' Information:- H & S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PY2009PTC002365

Company & Directors' Information:- K S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PB2001PTC024628

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035133

Company & Directors' Information:- V M S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392TN2004PTC054456

Company & Directors' Information:- B H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200MH2007PTC175126

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- P E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2010PTC137065

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TN2010PTC074938

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071594

Company & Directors' Information:- A A S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74200TG2005PTC046996

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069232

Company & Directors' Information:- N R P TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TG2009PTC064078

Company & Directors' Information:- EASTERN CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1943PTC011182

Company & Directors' Information:- O S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2013PTC034358

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2010PTC205207

Company & Directors' Information:- M & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2014PTC269962

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2012PTC066768

Company & Directors' Information:- A-1 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900GJ2012PTC068883

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND 8 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392KL2003PTC016720

Company & Directors' Information:- V R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202CH2000PTC023433

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2000PTC023550

Company & Directors' Information:- EASTERN CORPN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1936PTC008577

Company & Directors' Information:- F C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2007PTC159296

Company & Directors' Information:- S R J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC176517

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

Company & Directors' Information:- SOUTH INDIA COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1952PLC001113

    WPC No. 303 of 2020

    Decided On, 18 June 2020

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

    For the Petitioner: Palash Tiwari, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Vivek Chopra, Raza Ali, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 09-01-2020 issued by the 1st respondent for banning the business dealing with the petitioner for a period of 3 years in terms of Clause 4.7.7 of Purchase Manual of Coal India Limited.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner who has been shown as a sole proprietorship firm engaged in manufacturing multiple products including Tensile Plastic and LED Lights etc. and registered with National Small Industries Corporation Limited (for short " NSIC"). Respondent 1 floated a Notification Inviting Tender (NIT) No. SECL/BSP/MMW/APS/ SnR/TPN/ 05 dated 26-05-2018 for purchase of Tensile Plastic Net. In the aforementioned Tender proceedings, 2 of 10 the petitioner also participated but the said Tender was called off by the 1st respondent. The petitioner received an e-mail on 30-08-2018 consisting that the 1st respondent is sending 3 officials for inspecting the manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic. The officials of 1st respondent on the scheduled date inspected the factory of which address has been shown in the tender document submitted by the petitioner's proprietor and found that the petitioner's proprietor was not having the manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic, thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to him on 10-05-2019, asking him to explain as to why he should not be banned for wilful suppression of facts and furnishing wrong information for unlawful gains including suspension of entire business dealings and subsisting the present contracts/supplies for a period of 6 (six) months. Reply was submitted by the petitioner's proprietor on 22-05-2019, answering that on the date of visit of the officials of 1st respondent for manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic, he was not available, he was out of the country, the petitioner is duly certified by NSIC as a manufacturer of Tensile Plastic and other products. The Respondent- SECL floated new tender notification on 03-12-2019 through which bids were called for "LED Portable Miner's Cap Lamp (LED Lamp)". The petitioner again participated in the said tender proceedings in which the petitioner was disqualified, against which the petitioner made representation to Chairman-cum- Managing Director of Respondent-SECL. Respondent 1, instead of replying to the representation made by the petitioner, issued an order/ letter banning the petitioner for a period of 3 years; the action taken by the 1st respondent is under challenge stating it to be arbitrary and in-violation of principle of natural justice.

3. The 1st respondent submitted reply to the writ petition and pleaded that the show- cause notice dated 22-05-2019 wherein the business dealings with the petitioner were suspended including the existing contract too; but said notice was not put to challenge by the petitioner till the expiry of period mentioned in the notice. The conduct of the petitioner in not challenging the show-cause notice wherein the explanation was sought as to why the petitioner should not be banned for willful suppression of facts including suspension of all the business dealings with the 3 of 10 petitioner as well as subsisting contract/ supply order for a period of 6 months shows that the petitioner has accepted the action taken against him on the complaint received by the 1st respondent. To verify the veracity of complaint, a Committee of 3 officials was constituted for inspecting the factory premises of petitioner, which inspected the factory premises on 30-08-2018, upon which, it was found that the tendered item (Tensile Plastic) was not manufactured on the address supplied.

4. On the basis of the report submitted by the inspection committee, clarifications were sought for by the 1st respondent from the petitioner's proprietor. After considering the reply/ defence submitted and taking approval from the competent authority for banning business with the petitioner, order Annexure P-1 dated 09-01-2020 was passed. The order was passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and looking to the seriousness of the issue, appropriate action was taken. The aforementioned facts have been mentioned by the 1st respondent in their application for appropriate orders.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of show-cause notice itself is arbitrary and pre-determined to ban the petitioner from business. He pointed out that the petitioner is in the field of manufacturing for past two decades and supplying materials to the Respondent-SECL including Tensile Plastic and LED Lamps. Respondent 1 has purchased similar products from the petitioner and now on spurious grounds/ reason, impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed. The petitioner's proprietor was out of country when e-mail was sent to him by the 1st Respondent and the request of the petitioner's proprietor to visit the factory premises some other day has been arbitrarily turned down which shows that the 1st Respondent was adamant to act against the petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner is recognised by NSIC to be a manufacturer of Tensile Plastic and other products/ goods. Respondent 1 has not passed any order upon the show-cause notice dated 10-05-2019, though reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on the earliest on 22-05-2019. Respondent 1 4 of 10 issued another Tender notification in which petitioner also participated where the petitioner has been shown to be disqualified without there being any order against him till that date and the order Annexure P-1 dated 09-01-2020 banning the business dealings with the petitioner came only after petitioner made representation against disqualifying him from the other Tender proceedings. These actions/ act of Respondent 1 are arbitrary and discriminatory. It is contended that once the period of suspension mentioned in the show-cause notice had already expired in the month of November, 2019, there was no occasion for Respondent 1 to disqualify the petitioner from participating in the another Tender proceedings. Learned counsel contended that the contents of show-cause notice itself show that the 1st Respondent had already made up his mind and was pre-determined to pass orders against the interest of petitioner and show-cause notice issued was only a formality, there is violation of principle of natural justice while passing order Annexure P-1. He places his reliance upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, Mahabir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others reported in (1990) 3 SCC 752 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. Internation Airport Authority of India and another reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the additional document issued by NSIC, signifies that the certificate issued by NSIC has also been renewed, distincting manufacturing of tendered item. Learned counsel also submits that as per the direction of this Court, he has placed on record the document showing the manufacturing of the Tensile Plastic which is evident from the certificate issued by the NSIC.

6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent submits that no specific relief has been sought for quashing the second tender proceedings as also no interim relief has been sought with respect to the second 5 of 10 tender proceedings in an application for interim relief/ stay. The petitioner has not challenged the show-cause notice, in fact, he accepted the suspension period of 6 months as mentioned in the show-cause notice and the petition has been filed only after passing an order of banning from further business dealings on 09-01-2020. It is also pointed out that from the documents enclosed by the petitioner i.e. the Factory License showing only 20 persons working in the factory whereas the claim of the petitioner is of manufacturing multiple products and looking to the products mentioned in the documents itself, it is apparent that the petitioner could not able to manage the manufacturing unit of the products mentioned in the certificate Annexure P-11. One anonymous complaint was received by the 1st Respondent and to check the veracity of complaint, the 1st Respondent thought it proper to held the inspection of the factory premises of petitioner. Respondent 1 constituted a committee of 3 high rank officials to inspect the factory premises on the address mentioned in the Tender document and the committee upon inspection found that there was no such manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic. It is also pointed out that in the document Annexure P-11, the word 'Manufacturing' is mentioned only for the first item in the list and in the heading of the list, it is mentioned as Store(s)/ Service(s). There is no mention of word 'Manufacturing' to show that the petitioner is engaged as manufacturer of Tensile Plastic also. Learned Senior counsel submits that Annexure P-1 has been issued/ passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing after following the principle of natural justice and the order/ letter is a reasoned order. It is also pointed out that the work order has been issued to the 2 nd Respondent against the Tender notification No. GEM/2019/RA-26901 dated 03-12-2019 for LED Portable Miner's Cap Lamp and work order has also been issued. The petitioner has approached the Independent External Monitor by making representation.

7. Respondent 2 submitted that the show-cause notice was issued for the year 2020 referring to the Tender of the year 2018. He submits that vide Annexure P-8, Tender No. GEM/2019/RA-26901 dated 03-12-2019 was finalized and the 2 nd Respondent has been awarded as L-1, which is not put to challenge. The 6 of 10 grievance of the petitioner is much with regard to banning of business for a period of 3 years. The document on which the petitioner has placed reliance bears the disclaimer clause mentioning that 'the purchasing agencies are advised to satisfy themselves' which means that the description mentioned in the documents issued by the NSIC cannot be said that once the certificate is issued mentioning the item (Tensile Plastic) then that has to be accepted. No other document of running of a factory/ manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic has been placed on record. The petitioner has been issued show-cause notice so as to seeking explanation/ reply from him wherein propounding him that inspecting team did not find the manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic on the address mentioned in the Tender document.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record.

9. The case of the petitioner itself is that the officials of the 1st Respondent reached to the office/ address shown in the Tender document for inspecting the manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic, pre-notice was also sent to the petitioner firm through e-mail. From the above, it is apparent that there was no surprise check/ visit, the officials of 1st Respondent inspected/ visited the manufacturing unit, as claimed by the petitioner, only after giving prior notice to the petitioner. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's proprietor was out of country and to get the manufacturing unit inspected, his presence was necessary, does not appeal us because it is not an office room but a factory running which is required to be managed by more than one person and its operation cannot be stopped during unavailability of the proprietor of the firm. It is not the case of the petitioner that on the date of inspection, the officials/ team of officials constituted by the 1st Respondent have visited some other place instead of the address mentioned in the Tender document, the factory was closed and the officials have not inspected the same but the only defence taken is he was not available on that day and the time was 7 of 10 sought for by him for inspecting the manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic some other day but the request was denied by the inspecting team on the ground that they had to inspect some other factory at Kolkata. Even no allegation of malafide has been levelled in the reply to the notice or in the writ petition against the three officials of high rank of the inspecting team constituted by the 1st Respondent. In view of the above, the inspection report prepared by the inspecting committee constituted by the 1st Respondent cannot be doubted and as such its correctness also cannot be doubted. Further, the 1st Respondent has filed the inspection report along with the application for appropriate orders as Annexure RD/1 alongwith the covering letter dated 24-09-2018. Perusal of the report would show that the committee constituted by the 1st Respondent has inspected the petitioner factory as well as the factory of M/s Sanskriti Composites Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata on 30-08-2018 and 31-08-2018 respectively, which shows that the reason stated by the inspecting committee that they could not wait for the next day to be correct as after inspecting the factory premises of the petitioner, the inspecting committee inspected the factory of one M/s Sanskriti Composites Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. The documents annexed along with the writ petition and the document placed on record upon the direction issued by this Court are the documents issued by the NSIC. The certificate mentions about the store details, the headings in the column have been divided into four columns i.e. Serial no., Store(s)/ Service(s) Name; Specification(s); Qualitative Capacity; and Quantitative Capacity PA, where the word 'Manufacturing' has been imparted at Serial no. 1 only and not within the column 2 of Store(s)/ Service(s) Name showing the manufacturing also. The document forming part of Annexure P-11 bears the disclaimer clause which reads as under:

"Disclaimer: the purchasing agencies are advised to satisfy themselves with the store details in the certificate while doing the Technical Evaluation stage before placing the tender/order on the units, certified by NSIC."

10. Upon the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner has also enclosed the copy 8 of 10 of 'Licence To Work A Factory' which shows the employment of 20 workers maximum. The document issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner showing only 27 employees registered for the purpose of Provident Fund. Considering the document Annexure P-11 alongwith the document copy of the Licence To Work A Factory and document issued by the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, we are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's proprietor is running a manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic including the other manufacturing activities and demonstrating itself to be engaged in manufacturing of multiple products by only 27 employees. We have put specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner but he could not able to convince us on the issue by producing other document with regard to the manufacturing unit of 'Tensile Plastic'.

11. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the notice itself would show that the notice has not been issued with an open mind is concerned; though the terminology used in the notice mentions about the act of the petitioner based on the inspection report submitted by the team of high officials under 1st Respondent, but at the same time, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to take his defence. It is submitted that the requirement of show- cause notice is that, there should be specific allegations for imposing proposed actions against the notice.

12. Perusal of contents of notice would show that specific allegations/ charges have been mentioned that the petitioner was not having the manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic was the reason for the proposed action. The action of banning the business of the petitioner is in consonance with Clause 4.7 of the Purchase Manual of Coal India Ltd.; 4.7.1 deals with 'Suspension of Business'. The action taken under clause 4.7.1 was never challenged by the petitioner, thereafter, considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, orders have been passed under Clause 4.7.7 (iv). Reading of show-cause notice alongwith the Clauses of Purchase Manual of Coal India Limited, we do not find any error on the part of the 9 of 10 1st Respondent in issuing the show-cause notice and taking action under Clause 4.7.7 (iv) for banning business with the petitioner's firm by the 1st Respondent. The reason assigned in Annexure P-1 is falling under the Clause of Purchase Manual mentioned in the show-cause notice. The charges/ allegations made in the show-cause notice have not been satisfied by the petitioner by producing any reliable documents, particularly, when the petitioner failed to produce certificate/ licence to run a manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic Net.

13. Taking into consideration the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have afforded an opportunity to him to satisfy and make out the ground that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacturing process of Tensile Plastic Net, but, in our opinion, petitioner failed to produce any acceptable document showing his engagement of manufacturing of Tensile Plastic, particularly, in the light of the inspection report. The petitioner has mentioned in its reply dated 22-05-2019 (Annexure P-5) with regard to issuance of the letter by NSIC elucidating the status of manufacturer of Tensile Plastic Net, but the said letter has not been placed on record in the writ petition. The action under Annexure P-1 for banning the petitioner from all the business dealings has been issued after issuing show-cause notice in detail. The challenge/ allegation and also the proposed action to be taken against him, the order has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner making the allegations in detail with the relevant provisions of Purchase Manual, based on the area committee report submitted after physical verification of the factory could not be said that the notice was issued with a closed mind, particularly, whe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n the visit of the committee of high officials to the factory was not disputed and no allegation of malafide has was levelled against them. 14. The case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is the law on the facts of those cases. The only thing is whether it applies squarely in the facts of the case or not? In the case at hand, facts are that the petitioner shown himself to be manufacturer of Tensile 10 of 10 Plastic. Complaint received against two of giving false information. The information of the petitioner that he is manufacturer of Tensile Plastic was enquired by High Rank Officials by inspecting the factory site address supplied by the petitioner and it was found that there was no Manufacturing Unit available. The petitioner has not said that the site visited or inspected is of some other factory address and no allegation of malafide is made against the members of the inspecting team. True it is that the employer should keep open his mind and to decide it only after reply of the bidder/ noticee. Show-cause notice was issued calling explanation. After considering the reply, respondents passed impugned order. We, at the time of hearing, gave time to substantiate the ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to show this Court that they are manufacturer and having manufacturing unit of Tensile Plastic. But in the facts of the case petitioner failed to place any convincing material before us that there is some confusion on the report of the inspecting committee/team or it is not correct. We are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents, in an extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 15. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not of any help to him. 16. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any substance in the writ petition which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-08-2020 Saravanan Versus State Represented By The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi South Police Station, Sivagangai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
25-08-2020 Evergrwoing Investments & Consultants Private Limited Versus Tomorrowland Technologies Exports Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
20-08-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Sankhya Technologies Pvt Ltd., Chennai. High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 M/s. South India Road Milk Transport, Rep. by its Proprietor N. Vaidhyananathan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Animal Husbandry, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissinerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Saksoft Ltd., Perungudi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through the Chief General Manager, Chhattisgarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-07-2020 M/s. Sai Srinivasa Properties & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represent by its Director N. Vivekananda Reddy Versus Krishnappa & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-06-2020 S. Santhoshkumar & Another Versus Church of South India, South Kerala Diocese (Siuc), Palayam, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., AP. & Others Versus Kimudu Monu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Uber Technologies Inc. Versus Heller Supreme Court of Canada
25-06-2020 Continental & Eastern Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director Krishan Verma Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its concerned Director Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
25-06-2020 Pro Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commisioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi South & Another High Court of Delhi
17-06-2020 Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Konkan Storage Systems Kochi Pvt. Ltd., South End Reclamation, Mastyapuri, Willingdon Island High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 Shankar Saran Versus Chairman & Managing Director Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Md Kameual Islam & Others Versus The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
05-06-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited Versus NCS Computech Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-05-2020 The South African History Archive Trust Versus The South African Reserve Bank & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
20-05-2020 M/s. Prithvi Singh Versus Asst. Commissioner (South), Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Tvl.M.R. Motor Company, Represented by its Managing Partner, N. Rajagopal Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), (FAC), Salem Town (South) Circle, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
15-05-2020 PKSS Infrastructure Private Ltd. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 PKSS Infrastructure Private Ltd. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
21-04-2020 State Bank of India, A Government of India Undertaking Rep by its DGM and Branch Head Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary Services Tax Wing, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-04-2020 South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Versus MEC For Economic Development, Tourism And Environmental Affairs Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Government & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
15-04-2020 Union of India, through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Another Versus Ganeshibai @ Sunderibai In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-03-2020 Kerala Bottled Water Manufacturers Association (KBWA), Represented by Its President, Eastern Corporate Office, Kohi & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Environment Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 Selvakumar Versus State represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi City, Thoothukudi South PS, Thoothukudi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Arun Kumar Agarwal Versus South Central Railway & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Delhi Versus M/s. Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Versus The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai – 90 High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 South Eastern Coalfields Limited Versus Ashok Kumar Thakur High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 Abhiraj Associates Private Limited Srivastava Kothi V/S Eastern Railways, Kolkata Competition Commission of India
27-02-2020 Tvl. Trust Metal, Rep. by its Proprietrix Bhagwanti Devi Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 K. Maharaja Versus The Regional Transport officer, The Regional Transport Office, Madurai South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 D. Soundararajapandian, Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai(south), Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others V/S The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Principal Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Delhi South Versus Premium Real Estate Developers High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 Friends of Rajouri Garden Environment (Regd.) & Another Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 SKF Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore & Another National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
10-02-2020 M/s. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. V/S South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Chhattisgarh & Versus Anil Kumar, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Sarine Technologies Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Prachi Bhardwaj Versus Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation Through Partner Dhaval Dahyabhai Diyora High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 The South India Cine and Television Setting Workers Union Rep.by its President K.G.Jeevanandam (a) K.G.Jeeva Versus The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
30-01-2020 Chandra Ratan Bajaj V/S PIO/Dy. Chief General Manager (South), Delhi Transport Corporation (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Others Central Information Commission
29-01-2020 Eastern India Powertech Limited Versus Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission & Another Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
24-01-2020 South Indian Artistes' Association, Rep. by its General Secretary, T. Nagar Versus The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai, District Registrar (Admin), Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 N. Pandu Versus The Zonal Manager, LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Jeevan Bhagya, Saifabad, Hyderabad Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
16-01-2020 Sudarshan & Others Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director SECL, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-01-2020 S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Private Limited V/S Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
24-12-2019 Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee Versus M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Union of India Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad Versus Razia Sulthana & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-12-2019 Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Versus Sadhan Chandra Mondal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-12-2019 M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 M/s. Taranga Technologies, Andhra Pradesh Versus M/s. Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Tularam @ Khamman Sai Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-12-2019 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Kanjirappally Versus The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (South), Kottarakkara, Represented by Its Chairman & Another High Court of Kerala
04-12-2019 Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka & Others Supreme Court of India
25-11-2019 Shanmugam & Others Versus The Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-11-2019 Nigappa Madivala Versus State by Mysuru South Police High Court of Karnataka
13-11-2019 R. Dharmalingam Versus State by Inspector of Police, CBCID (South) Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Malati Mondal & Another Versus The Chairman South Dum Dum Municipality & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-11-2019 Rajdeep Energies Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Director Versus Res Q Technologies Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Magesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-11-2019 Central Board of Trustees EPFO Through APFC Delhi (South) Versus Kendriya Bhandar High Court of Delhi
01-11-2019 Smartchem Technologies Limited & Another Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
21-10-2019 Coimbatore South Sarvodaya Sangam, Represented by its Secretary P. Velusamy, Erode Versus Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Kenneth Stanley (alias) Ken Male (South African National, bearing Passport No.408381458) Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-10-2019 Ajay Kumar & Others Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
01-10-2019 The Church of South India Trust Association, Tiruchirappalli Thanjavur Diocese, Rep.by its Power Agents & Another Versus M. Ramesh Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-09-2019 Jai Narain Tiwari Versus U.O.I. Thru. G.M. North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-09-2019 S. Santhoshkumar & Another Versus Church of South India, District Church (CSI District Church), Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 Chetan Bagga Versus The Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
18-09-2019 N. Seshaiah Versus South Central Railway Rep. by Its General Manager, Secunderabad & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-09-2019 Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) through its Assistant Director, Kolkata Versus Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University, East Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
13-09-2019 M/s. Contentra Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nikhil Pal High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 Siemens Enterprise Communications Ptv Ltd Now Known As Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Himachal Pradesh
30-08-2019 Front Line Marketing Kachipukur(South) Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-08-2019 Diesel Pump Engineers Versus Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-08-2019 Rajangam Versus The State, Represented by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, South Range, Tiruppur High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dinesh D. Shelar High Court of Delhi
21-08-2019 C.G. Babu Versus The South Indian Bank Ltd., Regional Office, Thrissur Represented by its Authorized Officer & Others High Court of Kerala
20-08-2019 The South Indian Bank Ltd., rep., by its Chief Manager, Main Branch, Madurai Versus C. Samson Advocate & Sole Arbitrator & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-08-2019 South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another Versus M/s. Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
16-08-2019 M.K. Ramakrishnan Versus The Management of Express Carriers Ltd., South India House, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras