IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

REVIEW PETITION NO. AX & /2023
PETITIONER: RahulSaluja
S/o Ashok Saluja
Age about 35 years
Occupation: Businessman
R/o Dubey Colony, Katni (M.P.)
-Vs.-

RESPONDENTS: 1 MadhyaPradeshState Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd

, Through its General Manager
Head Office Paryavas Bhawan
neeAars Block no. 1, 3* floor
.
teg = (Uo
en Clasie Mother Teresa Marg
Offa mee ASDCASS ee Jail Road, Bhopal(M.P.)
Presontatt aq ‘Assistant
2 Regional Manager
MadhyaPradeshState Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd
Jabalpur (M.P.)

3 District Manager
MadhyaPradeshState Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd
Jabalpur (M.P.)
fe
4% ok
REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER#1\RULEJ7 OF CPC

The Petitioner by way of instant review application is seeking

review/recall of the order dated 14.09.2022 Annexure RP/L, passed bythis
Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 20920/ 2017 (Rahul Saluja v. M.P. State Civil
Supplies Corp.) on the following facts and grounds:

28 APR .udd
 FACTS

Thatthe Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition no.20920 /17 assailing the
legality and validity of order dt.16.11.2017 (Annx. P/7 in W.P.),
passed by the Respondent no.1, whereby the Petitioner firm was
debarred/Blacklisted for a period of 2016 to 2018 and one year
thereafter without even issuance of Show causenotice.

That, the petitioner is a sole proprietorship engagedin the businessof

transport of food grains and other civil supplies. It is relevant to
highlight that the petitioner firm is duly registered with the
Respondent Corporation.

Respondent M.P State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited is a

registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and is an

Undertaking of the State of Madhya Pradesh and,therefore, is a State

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus

amenable to writ jurisdiction before this Hon'ble Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent No.1 hasissued a notice inviting tender on 02.12.2016

for the purpose of transportation of local and long route government
purchases wheat and its produce from the collection centre to the
specific places as directed for the year 2016-2018 i.e. for 01.10.2016 to
30.09.2018. (Annx P/1 of W.P.)

Petitioner whois a transporter and government contractor at Katni

has been working with the respondents for last four years and has
executed various contracts and completed timely with the
respondents and as such having unblemished record with the
respondents.
 Pursuant to such a notice inviting tender the petitioner applied for
the transportation for item No.39 mentioned into the Schedule-I for
Narsinghpur Sector-56 and deposited the earnest money tothe tune
of Rs.2,00,000/- with the respondents and quoted its rate online for
local work per tonneat the rate of Rs.135/- and for lead kilometers(1
to 15) per tonne per kilometer at the rate of Rs.30/-. (Annx. P/2 of
W.P.) .
Petitioner received a letter from the respondent No.3 on 30.01.2017 in
which lowestrates of the petitioner were accepted and along with the
letter dated 30.01.2017 the petitioner was supplied the rates so
sanctioned for the petitioner ie. Rs. 135/- for local and lead
kilometers 1 to 15 per tonne per kilometer at the rate of Rs.24.32 as
per the cross offer. (Annx P/3 of W.P.)

The petitioner has quoted his rate as mentioned into the item rate
tender i.e. Rs. 135/- for local work per tonne and Rs.30/- per tonne
per kilometer for lead kilometer 1 to 15. Yet the respondents have
directed the petitioner to execute the agreement on the lowerrate at
Rs.24.32 as.per cross offer than the rate of Rs.30/- as quoted by the
petitioner. Petitioner did not agree such cross offer by whichhis rates
were lowered down from Rs.30 to Rs.24.32, therefore, declined to
execute the agreement on 04.02.2017 and stated very categorically
that the rates which petitioner has quoted may kindly be approved
for the purpose of carrying out the tender work. (Annx P/4 of W.P.)

. Petitioner informed to the respondents on 04.02.2017 and after such a

letter by the petitioner the respondents did not pay any heed to any
correspondence with the petitioner as petitioner was never ever
informed with regard to the acceptance of his rates quoted as such
the petitioner refused to accept the cross offer of Rs.24.32.
10. Petitioner was shocked to receive a telephonic call on 09.11.2017 by
the respondents with reference to execute the agreement as per the
letter dated 30.01.2017 which petitioner did not agree and stated very
categorically that the rates which petitioner quoted may kindly be
accepted whereasthe petitioner is not ready to execute the work i.e.
as per cross offer at the rate of Rs.24.32 and further informed to the
respondents that on the rates so quoted by the petitioner, the
petitioner is ready to execute the work pursuant to the notice inviting
tender dated 02.12.2016. (Annx P/5 of W.P.). Further reminder was
also given bythe petitioner to the respondents as such petitioner did
not accept the cross offer so approved by the respondents whereas
the rates of the petitioner were not accepted by the respondents in
toto. (AnnxP/6 of W.P.).

11. Petitioner was shocked to know notice floated into the website of
the respondents in which the nameof the petitioner has been placed
into the blacklisted transporters wherein the nameof the petitioner
appearsatserial no.29 and it has been directed further that they be.
debarred from participating into the further tenders. Copy of
blacklisting order dt. 16.11.17 is annexed herewith is Annexure RP/2.

12. That, the Petitioner Challenged the aforesaid order dt. 16.11.2017 in
W.P. 20920/2017 on the ground the same has been passed in
complete violation of the principles of Natural Justice. It is pertinent
to mention not even a show cause notice wasissued before passing of
the impugned order. The matter came up for hearing on 7.12.2017
where in this Hon’ble Court was pleased to stay the operation and
effect of the Impugned Order 16.11.2017. Copy of interim order dt.
7.12.17 passed in W.P. 20920/2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure
RP/3.

oa

+) 28 APR 2023
ee
13. That, thereafter the matter remained pending and the Respondent
Corporation kept on seeking for time to file their Reply. The
Respondent soughttimetofile its reply on at least on 5 occasions. The
samecan be substantiated by bare perusal of the ordersheets. Copy of
order sheets of W.P. 20920/2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure
RP/4.

14. That, thereafter on 09.07.2022, the counsel of the Respondent

Corporation made a submission that the since the period of
blacklisting is over the matter has becomeinfructuous. Copy orderdt.
09.07.22 in W.P. 20920/2107 is annexed herewith as Annexure RP/5.

15. That, thereafter on 14.09.2022, the matter was again taken up wherein
the Counsel for the petitioner under the impression since the the
period of blacklisting is already over which was for the period of
2016-18 and since the as per the counsel for the respondent had
admitted on the earlier date the matter has becomeinfructuous, made
a submission that the matter has become infructuous. Therefore, the
matter was dismissed as infructuous.

16. That, thereafter the petitioner participated and submit their bids in
furtherance of tender issued by the Food Corporation of India for
appointment of regular handling and Transport Contactor for Food.
Grains at Railhead and other storage centers for HTC Niwar(Katni).

17, That, it is pertinent to highlight that petitioner was disqualified in the

technical evaluation for the reason that case pertaining to ‘Stay on
Backlisting’ has been disposed of the Hon’ble High Court as being
infructuous therefore the blacklisting has been restored. Therefore, it
wasstated that as per the Disqualification condition (Clause 4). Copy
of technical evaluation is annexed herewith as Annexure RP/6.
18. That, the representation of the petitioner also was rejected by the
authorities vide order dt.12.10.2022, whereby it was stated that since

the Writ Petition was disposed of without any decision or judgment,

therefore, it will be assumed that Backlisting has been restored and

stay has been vacated. It was further stated that no document was
provided by the Petitioner to show that the Blacklisting has cometo
an end andatthis stage, no further documentation can be submitted.

Copy of order dt. 12.10.22 is annexed herewith as Annexure RP/7.

19, That, the aforesaid order challenged before this Hon’ble Court in WP
23814/22, wherein initially the Hon’ble Court initially stayed the
tender process vide orderdt. 23.11.22, however on 20.04.23, on the

request of Respondents therein, the aforesaid stay was vacated on the .

ground that the question the effect of stay order on the life of the
blacklisting order shall be considered at the final stage. Copy of order
dt. 23.11.22 and 20.04.23 passed in W.P. 23814/22 is annexed
herewith as Annexure RP/8.

20. That, it is pertinent mention that order dt. 14.09.2022 passed in WP

20920/17 has resulted in confusion and uncertainty whichis causing
prejudice to the Petitioner. He has been needlessly disqualified from
the tender process, whereas the it was the respondent’s own
submission that the matter has become infructuous. Therefore, it will

be interest of justice to review the aforesaid order and pass the order
on merits.

21. Hence the instant application for review/modification on the.

following grounds:
*
 GROUNDS

(A) That, action at the instance of the respondents suffers from total

non-application of mind, is unjustifiable, unreasonable and is in

total violation of the principles of natural justice as such the
petitioner has been blacklisted as a transporter

That, action at the instance of the respondents is bad in the eye of

law as such no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the

petitioner prior to passing of the impugnedorderblacklisting the
petitioner as a contractor.

(C) That, no reasons have been assigned by the. respondents for the
purposeof blacklisting of the petitioner

That, respondents cannot be compel the petitioner to execute the

agreement on the lower rate than quoted in the financial bid and
even as ‘per the cross offer the respondents cannot compel the
petitioner to execute the work. It is the right of the petitioner to
accept the offer or not which petitioner in the instant case declined
as it was not acceptable.

(E) That, tenderer cannotbe blacklisted only in the event whenhefails

to execute the agreement and modify the rates or submits the
necessary documents in time. Whereas Clause 14 is not applicable
in the instant facts and circumstances of the case whereasit is the
prerogative of the petitioner to accept the cross offer or not. The
action atthe instance of respondentsblacklisting the petitioner as a
contractor is bad in the eye of law and runs contrary to the notice
inviting tender dated 02.12.2016 as also in total violation of the
principles of natural justice as such does not assign any reason for
blacklisting of the petitioner as a contractor.

The
“% oN HSGp “
. OL te
rt ot

is 98 APK uid
7”
5 sks
Peery
 10

(F) That, on 09.07.2022, the counsel of the Respondent Corporation

himself made a submission that the since the period of blacklisting

is over the matter has becomeinfructuous.

That on 14.09.2022, the matter was again taken up wherein the

Counsel for the petitioner under the impression that the period of.
blacklisting is already over which was for the period of 2016-18
and since the as per the counsel for the respondent had admitted
on the earlier date the matter has become infructuous, made a

submission that the matter has become infructuous. Therefore, the

matter was dismissed as infructuous.

That, it is pertinent to highlight that petitioner was disqualified in

the technical evaluation for the reason that case pertaining to ‘Stay
on Backlisting’ has been disposed of the Hon’ble High Court as
being infructuous therefore the blacklisting has been restored.
Therefore, it was stated that as per the Disqualification condition
(Clause4).

That, the representation of the petitioner also was rejected by the

authorities vide order dt.12.10.2022, whereby it was stated that

since the Writ Petition was disposed of without any decision or

judgment, therefore, it will be assumed that Backlisting has been
restored and stay has been vacated. It was further stated that no
document was provided by the Petitioner to show that the
Blacklisting has come to an end and at this stage, no further

documentation can be submitted.

That, it is pertinent mention that order dt. 14.09.2022 passed in WP

20920/17 has resulted in confusion and uncertainty which is
causing prejudice to the Petitioner. He has been needlessly
disqualified from the tender process, whereas the it was the
LR

26 APR 2023
 respondent's own submission that the matter has become
infructuous. Therefore, it will be interest of justice to review the
aforesaid order andpass the order on merits.

That, it is pertinent to highlight, the Counsel for the petitioner

made the submission that the WP has becomeinfructuous as the
impugnedorder waspassedonly fora limited time i.e. 2016-18 and
the aforesaid time period has already elapsed. The counsel of the
Respondent on the previous date had madea specific submission
that due totheefflux of time, the impugnedhaslostits significance
and the Petition has become infructuous. Therefor in view ofall
above, the aforesaid submission was madeby the counsel for the

Petitioner resulting in disposal of the Writ Petition as infructuous.

(L) That, Order of blacklisting is in violation of the Landmark

Judgment passed by Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services
vs Govt. Of Net Of Delhi, 2014 9 SCC 105, as no show causenitice
wasissued prior to passing of the said order.

Thatan affidavit is filed in support of above.

Caveat

The Petitioner submits that no notice caveat has been received by him
from the opposite parties.

PRAYER

It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybepleasedto:

(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased review/ modify order
dt. 14.09.2022 passed in W.P. No.20920/2017(Annx RP/1) and
dispose-off the materin light of submissions made by the Respondent
recorded the order dt. 09.07.2022, in the interest ofjustice.

PP 999
 12

(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleasedto call for the records

of W.P. No.20920/2017, review/ modify order dated

14,09.2022(Annexure RP/1) and may hold that Impugned order dt.

16.11.2017 (Annx P/ 7 of W.P.) is passed in violation of the principles
of Justice and maykindly be pleased quash the same,in the interest
ofjustice.
(iii) That, in the alternate and without prejudice, this Hon’ble court may
restore the aforesaid Writ Petition No.20920/2017 in its original
number as well as the interim order dt. 07.12.2017, in the interest of
justice

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
mayalso be granted.

Jabalpur 9
Steachay
(SANKALP KOCHAR)
Dated: ° OR 20: v Counsel for the Petitioner
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR (M.P.)

REVIEW PETITION NO. [2023

PETITIONER : Rahul Saluja

VS.

RESPONDENTS : MadhyaPradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation

Ltd and Others.
AFFIDAVIT

ation: Businessman
L, Rahul Saluja, S/o AshokSaluja, Age about 35 years, Occup
te on oath as
R/o Dubey Colony, Katni (M.P.), do hereby solemnly affirm andsta
under:-

I am well
1. That I am the petitioner in the Instant review petition and

conversant with the facts of the case.

petition
2. That the contents in paras 1 to end of the accompanying review
to law
are true and correct to my personal knowledge and those relating
el and
and records are based on the information received from my Couns

mi. SEE _ ;
commisshaner ot Baie ! (Balan
For the High Cour DEPONENT
ge
5 Jabalny
WM ERIFICATION

1, Rahul Saluja, above deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of

ed
ras 1 and 2 above are true to my personal knowledge andbelief. Verifi
A f . n a “ab

206 APR 20 and signed at Jabalpuron this 2ade April\2023.

é 8 APR iudd
work before me an the AY Of ceneenefe
yO ty MeN rash
whei paregely ho dso g he hed hog bean
igenarned Sy Ves Macoafre Meas
Sagi Aue Ie
_ whose sesceseasesvectevesselh@03 66 apponded
Signature are