W.P.(C)/3635/2013 of KISHAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Parties
- KISHAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS (PETITIONER)
- UNION OF INDIA & ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (2)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
Cites (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C) 3635/2013 & CM APPL. 6809/2013 (stay)
KISHAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS
..... Petitioner
ThroughMr. Ashish Mohan, Mr. Mohit Kumarand Mr. Chetan R. Wahi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... RespondentsThroughMr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. Amit Sinha,Advs.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLAO R R%21.07.2017
Petitioner assails an order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Chief
Commercial Manager, Northern Railways, which is as under:-
“In reference to above, the competent authority (CCM)has considered that leaseholder’s appeal as well as commentsof the division and decided as follows:-
“Decision of the Sr. DCM/FZR is upheld on the ground
that adequate opportunity has been given to the lease holder tosign the agreement and commence loading. Due process shouldbe followed for debarring for one year as per decision for Sr.DCM/FZR.”
You are therefore requested to take action accordinglyunder advice to this office.”
During the course of the hearing, both the ld. counsel for theparties concede that the debarment of the alleged blacklisting is forone year only. When that is so, nothing survives in the petition. Ld.counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has beenparticipating in the future tenders, but, it was under the interim orders
of the Court. When, admittedly, the debarment was for only one year,his participation in the tendering for subsequent periods, must havebeen entertained on its own merits. Suffice to say, it is no one’s casethat the impugned blacklisting was to survive beyond one year.Petition is therefore, dismissed having been infructuous.
Dismissed.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JULY 21, 2017ac