BRIJ TEXTILES, DELHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.7.2017 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2 debarring it from participation in the tender floated by respondent No.2 for a period of three years and cancelling the rate contract. Further, a prayer has been made directing the respondents to make the payment of the contact as the petitioner had already made 100% supplies.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of Adhesive Plaster, Gauze Cloth, bandage cloth, rolled bandages, crepe bandages, POP bandages, lint and industrial adhesive tapes and various hospital consumable. The respondents floated a tender vide Notice Inviting Tender and tender document (Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively) for supply of consumables under different packages for the year 2016-17 to be used in Government Hospitals and Government Medical Collages in the State of Punjab. Vide rate contract dated 15/17.6.2016 (Annexure P-3), the bid of the petitioner was accepted for the items, i.e. Rolled Cotton Bandages of different sizes and Absorbent Gauze Cloth. It was stipulated therein that the rate contract would be governed by the terms and conditions attached with the tender. Respondent No.2 vide purchase order dated 27.7.2016 (Annexure P-4) which included the schedules and delivery dates to various consignee hospitals etc. in phases, placed an order of Absorbent Gauze Cloth and Rolled Bandages of different sizes with the petitioner in terms of the rate contract. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted the performance security against the said tender vide letter dated 8.8.2016 with the Bank Guarantee (Annexure P-5). On the basis of the said purchase orders, the petitioner had already supplied 100% stock. However, no anomaly was found in the supplies of Schedule No.1 with Delivery date as 8.8.2016. All the supplies were duly tested in NABL accredited laboratories and thereafter respondent No.2 had also got tested the entire material supplied and had not found any anomaly qua the respect to the standard and quality of the Absorbent Gauze Cloth and Rolled Bandage as is discernible from the statement, Annexure P-6. The petitioner had supplied a total number of 90655 Rolls (Thaans) of the Absorbent Gauze Cloth to respondent No.2 and its different hospitals, i.e. 100% as per the purchase order from time to time. According to the petitioner, out of the 23 batches supplied by the petitioner, two batches, i.e., 2701 and 2798 containing 4800 Rolls (Thaans) each were not as per the prescribed standard and specification. The said batches after manufacture were duly tested in NABL accredited laboratories which were in accordance with the specifications and were of standard quality as is clear from the lab reports dated 26.8.2016 (Annexure P-7) pertaining to batch No. 2701 and dated 1.12.2016 (Annexure P-8) pertaining to batch No.2798. The petitioner had replaced both the said batches with batch Nos.2832 and 2833, respectively after NABL test reports including the lab test report dated 6.2.2017 (Annexure P-9) pertaining to batch No. 2833. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 5.5.2017 along with test reports (Annexure P-10 Colly) was served upon the petitioner that the material of Absorbent Gauze vide batch Nos. 2701 and 2798 had not passed the test of Government Laboratory and even the replaced material with batch No. 2833 had again not passed the test. Vide the said show cause notice, three actions were proposed to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a report dated 11.5.2017 (Annexure P-11) to the said show cause notice. Subsequently, the petitioner also sent a representation dated 20.7.2017 (Annexure P-12) to respondent No.1 against the said show cause notice. However, respondent No.2 vide order 24.7.2017 (Annexure P-13) had debarred the petitioner from participation in the tender to be floated for Absorbent Gauze by respondent No.2 for a period of three years after forfeiting the security amount and cancellation of the rate contract. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The said writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing a written statement. It was pleaded therein that the petitioner had supplied 23 batches of Absorbent Gauze as per the orders from time to time and each batch was duly tested by the Government laboratory. However, batch Nos. 2701 and 2798 were found to be below the standard quality and even batch No.2701 was not as per description, the average wrap and average weft were also not as per the standard prescribed. The petitioner replaced the said batches with batch No.2833 which was also sent for testing at the Government laboratory. The said batch also failed due to lack of absorbency. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and vide order dated 24.7.2017 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner was debarred only for one item, i.e. Absorbent Gauze due to frequent failure of the product. The other averments made in the writ petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made.