Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the respondents, black listing the petitioner for a period of one year.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in regard to the work undertaken in the year 2014-15. The petitioner undertook the work in the year 2015-16 and 2016-17, thereupon satisfactorily as there was no complaint in the work for the subsequent period. The respondents have now passed the order debarring the petitioner to participate in the tender for a period of one year. It is ignoring the work undertaken by the petitioner for the period subsequent to year 2014-15.
Prayer, accordingly is to cause interference in the order impugned herein.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.07.2019, black listing him for a period of one year.
The order aforesaid has been challenged on the factual grounds. The specific argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that what ever allegation exists, it pertains to the year 2014-15 and not for the subsequent period. From the impugned order and other documents, it is not coming out that defaults were noticed with regard to the work in the year 2014-15. To substantiate the arguments, even copy of the show cause notice has not been enclosed to find out whether the allegations were in regard to performance in the year 2014-15 or for the subsequent period.
The impugned order makes a reference of Batch Numbers apart from the Test Reports for three samples. Different Batch Numbers show it to be of 2015 and also of 2016 with report in the year 2017 and 2018. If the reports pursuant to the Test was furnished to the respondents in the year 2017 or in the year 2018, we do not find that the impugned order in reference to it can be interfered only for the reason that the petitioner was given contract even for the subsequent years after year 2014-15.
The impugned order, shows that the sample was not meeting all the requirements of labelling and taking aforesaid into account, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice.
There exists an admission of the petitioner vide letter dated 10.10.2018 about the default. It is however, with assurance that they will be change "Foil Printing Material" to rectify the mistake.
Since admission exists on the part of the petitioner, there remains no reason to cause interference in the impugned order, debarring the petitioner to participate in the tender process for a period of one year.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 A. Verma