PANTRONICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner tenders an Affidavit of Service dated 15th November 2018. The Respondents had initially refused to accept service and the Petitioner had therefore, sent the entire Petition along with annexures by Blue Dart Courier Services dated 13th November 2018 and annexed to the Affidavit is a copy of the courier receipt evidencing service. The Affidavit of Service is taken on record.

(2.) The urgency in moving the Vacation Court appears to be that the tender process has been initiated by the Respondents and that the Petitioner has expressed desire to submit its bid for the tender. There are in fact two tenders and in respect of the first tender, the Petitioner has already submitted its bid on 5th November 2018. It is with regard to the second tender that the Petitioner seeks permission to this Court to submit its bid and which is to be submitted on 19th November 2018.

(3.) This Petition challenges an order dated 26th July 2018 which bans the Petitioner from business dealing with the Respondents for a period of five years with effect from 26th July 2018. According to the Petitioner, no reasons have been given for the banning order and this is apparent from the face of the impugned order dated 26th July 2018. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner has very good case on merits of its challenge to the impugned order dated 26th July 2018. By virtue of this order, the Petitioner has been banned from taking part in the tender process initiated by the Respondents and therefore, seeks urgent ad-interim order in order to enable the Petitioner to take part in the tender process and submits its bids on 19th November 2018.