M/S Sohan Industries v. State Of Haryana And ORS

PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.01.28 12:40 CWP No.4276 of 2013 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4276 of 2013 Date of Decision.20.01.2015 M/s Sohan Industries .......Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents

Present:

Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Keshav Gupta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved at the black listing of the petitioner rice mill on the ground that the goods alleged to have been supplied to the State as per the contract after milling did not conform to the requisite specifications. The Food Corporation of India took a decision to reject the supplies effected on assessment made by the lab that the standard did not conform to the specifications and this was put in challenge to the Appellate Authority by the petitioner. It appears that a fresh testing had also been undertaken and it was stated that it did not conform to the specifications. The petitioner had his own assessment done through a private agency that returned a result which was different. The tabulation of the results as found by the petitioner through the private agency and the test done by the State is brought out in the

CWP No.4276 of 2013 -2petition itself which is as under:- Parameters As shown by the FCI, Karnal respondent No.4 Petitioners sample results from outside approved lab Prescribed allowed maximum limit % age Grade A-Rice Raw Damaged 3.8% 0.4% 3.0% Discoloured 2.75% 0.6% 3.0% Dehusked 10.8% Nil 12% 2.

I cannot take a decision on what is the correct assessment made with divergent valuations emanating from the two different reports. The justification for blacklisting cannot, therefore, be assessed on the reports which are still inconclusive.

3.

The contract of supply had been only between the petitioner and the State and the State is on record to say that the goods supplied conform to the specifications and that they have no objection regarding the same. I will allow the stand taken by the State to prevail on the assessment made by the FCI and quash the blacklisting done. Any future agreement between the petitioner and the State will follow the assessment already made by the State.

4.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 20, 2015 Pankaj*