Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: The Bench of S.R. Sen, J. allowed a writ petition challenging cancellation of tender for procurement of Assam Rifles.

In the present case, the petitioner was declared a successful bidder in a tender for procurement of ‘coat combat disruptive for Assam rifles’. But his tender was cancelled by the authorities all of a sudden without providing him with the opportunity of hearing stating the ground as ‘administrative difficulties’. 

Respondent’s contention was that the petitioner had tried to mislead it by submitting two samples – an advance sample and a final sample. The advanced sample was acceptable but when the final sample was furnished, it was found that it was totally different from the advanced sample. Therefore, the entire bidding was cancelled and the authority called for re-tender. 

The Court, after considering facts of the case, disposed of the petition holding that if respondent wanted to go for re-tendering, it was liberty to do so; but the petitioner had to be given an opportunity of being heard before canceling tender on the ground of mismatch or any other grounds.[Hanumanbux Umadutt v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Megh 290, decided on 20-12-2018]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The National Commission, through a Bench comprising of Anup Kr Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Vishwanath, Member allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the State Commission in the present case.

The present case was filed by the respondents in the District Commission against the petitioners for an award of compensation to the tune of Rs 50,000 for the physical, mental and financial pain which was inflicted and Rs 20,000 legal expenses which had been incurred. The respondents had given a laptop for repair to the petitioners, who after having given an assurance of the timely repair of the laptop, subsequently did not respond to the correspondences of the respondents, nor did they complete the repair. The District Commission gave the respondents Rs 15,000 in compensation and Rs 5,000 for legal expenses, to which a revision petition was filed to the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance of the petitioners. In the present revision petition before the National Commission, the petitioners have argued that due to certain pressing reasons, such as the resolution passed by the Bar, calling for all lawyers to abstain from work, illness, and incorrect date being mentioned on the cause list by the reader, the petitioners were not able to appear before the State Commission.

The National Commission held that the non-appearance before the State Commission was not deliberate and, as there were sufficient reasons for the absence of the petitioners, it is in the interest of justice that he be heard, otherwise his position in law will be severely prejudiced. Accordingly, it was decreed by the National Commission that the order passed by the State Commission be set aside, and the State Commission was to hear both the parties in the appeal and decide on merits. [Multycare Solutions v. Malay Bhaumik, 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 404, order dated 03-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Court recently dealt with a petition under Section 482 CrPC praying for quashing of complaint against petitioner under Sections 195 and 211 IPC that is, for fabricating false evidence and false charge of offence with an intent to injure, respectively.

In a case titled State v. Sanjay, relating to FIR No. 432 dated 14.06.2010 under Sections 376(2)(g), 366, 120-B and 506 IPC, a show-cause notice was issued by the court to the petitioner for prosecuting her for the commission of the offence under the abovementioned provisions in January, 2015 ordering the complaint to be filed against her in the Court of CJM, Rohtak. However, this order was set aside on appeal with an observation as well as an instruction that the petitioner be allowed to file the reply to show-cause notice.

Petitioner filed reply praying that she may be forgiven by having pity on her, so that her future career is not spoiled and notice in hand may kindly be withdrawn. Not convinced with this reply, the Court passed the order in September, 2015 for filing the complaint. So, a complaint was filed by the court praying for the quashing of which the present petition has been filed.

Considering the chain of facts and highlighting the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice under S. 340, the Court clarified that there was nothing illegal in it and did  not amount to miscarriage of justice at all, for the opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner as she was allowed to file reply to the show-cause notice. It is the non-acceptance of the forgiveness sought that has led to the filing of complaint in the Court. Inderjit Singh, J accordingly held that there is no merit in the case and accordingly, dismissed the petition. [Meenakshi v. State of Haryana, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 1643,  decided on 04.05.2017]