NATIONAL MEDITEK Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY in filing the review petition is condoned.

(2.) THE application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act is disposed of.

(3.) SHRI Sudhanshu Kasliwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the respondents was to debar the petitioner from participating in their tenders for two years, whereas the effect of the order is that the petitioner has been taken as black listed by other bodies in different States. In order to bring home his point, learned senior counsel has referred to the order passed by such bodies to show that his empanelment/approval rates has been cancelled by such bodies in other States. Learned senior counsel submits that the show cause notice dated 7.11.2013 was a mere eye wash as it appears from the note sheet, which petitioner has acquired later that decision to forfeit its bids, debarring it from participating in future bids for two years was already taken. Reference is made to note 178, which has been approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondents at note 180. Learned senior counsel also referred that the show cause notice that was served on the petitioner on 19.9.2014 was enough to debar the petitioner from participating in the tender proceedings of the respondents for two years and accordingly the petitioner submitted reply to such show cause notice on 30.10.2014 explaining their stand. The show cause notice was never meant to blacklist the petitioner and, therefore, the order of debarment cannot be construed as an order of blacklisting, is the argument of learned senior counsel.