LENIN RAVEENDRAN v. UNION OF INDIA

Sri.M.V.S.Nampoothiry - learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, though certain investigations were ordered against his client, none of them have ended in any conclusive finding against him; and that, at the best, he has only been found liable for an amount of Rs.87,783/-, even after a comprehensive investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He added that even this imputation is untenable, as his client will be able to prove in Trial; and therefore, that the prayers in this writ petition are fully eligible to be granted to him, particularly because, as long as he has not been blacklisted or proceeded against by the respondents as per law, he cannot be stopped from tendering his quotations in future.

4. Noticing the afore submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -4-

18.11.2022, a learned Judge of this Court issued the following order: “Learned Central Government Counsel seeks short adjournment for filing detailed counter affidavit.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner presses for an interim order. The petitioner’s grievance is that by the registration of a crime by the Central Bureau of Investigation, he is prevented now participating in bids for the supply of medicines. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in the business of supply of medicines for many years and even if, for the sake of argument, the allegation based on which the crime has been registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation is taken to be correct, the alleged loss is only Rs. 87,783/-. As against this the petitioner has furnished Bank Guarantee for more than Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs and a bond, as evidence by Ext. P9 and Ext. P10. It is contended that the pendency of the crime registered way back in the year 2018 cannot be put forth as a reason to prevent the petitioner from participating in future tenders. WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -5-

3. I heard the learned Central Government Standing Counsel also.

4. I find prima facie merit in the contention that, since Bank Guarantee for Rs. 47,64,000/- is furnished and an indemnity bond submitted by the petitioner, no prejudice will be caused if the petitioner is permitted to participate in future tenders. Registration of a crime by itself cannot be a reason to curtail the petitioner’s right. Hence, there shall be a direction to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender for supply of medicines pending final orders in this writ petition, subject to the petitioner keeping the Bank Guarantee life. Post after a month.”

5. Thereafter, nearly a year and a half later, this matter was listed on 05.01.2024, when the ‘CBI’, on instructions, said that the loss caused by the petitioner has been quantified to be only Rs.87,783/-; but added WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -6- that this is only with respect to one instance and that there are seven others mentioned in the Final Report filed against him, under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). This Court, therefore, directed Sri.Sreelal Warrier - learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, to verify what is the actual amount determined by his client to be the loss in all the instances put together.

6. This matter was thus listed on

09.01.2024, on which day, the following interim order was indited, after hearing Sri.Sreelal Warrier and the other learned counsel: “Read order dated 05.01.2024.

2. Sri.Sreelal Warrier says that only Rs.87,783/- has been found to be the loss by his client, since they have not received any verifiable “evidence” with respect to the other instances yet. He added that the CGHS has initiated action against the petitioner, but that his client does not have specific information WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -7- about it.

3. Sri.Girish Kumar – learned Central Government Counsel, is, therefore, directed to obtain specific instructions as to whether there is any other amount found to be the liability against the petitioner as of now. List, for further consideration on

12.01.2024.”

7. Subsequently, on 19.01.2024, in response to the submissions of Sri.M.V.S.Nampoothiry - learned counsel for the petitioner, that though his client has not been found guilty of any misfeasance as of now, he has been restricted from making any tender, and since he pointed out to Ext.P12 in substantiation, this Court passed the following order on that day: “Though several earlier orders were issued, the respondents have not been able to inform this Court whether any amount more than Rs.87,783/- has been found to be the loss caused by the WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -8- petitioner.

2. However, Sri.M.V.S.Nampoothiry – learned counsel for the petitioner, says that merely because his client has been arrayed as second accused in Ext.P5 Charge Sheet - but he having not been found guilty by any Court yet - he has been excluded from all tendering processes, which is evident from Ext.P12.

3. Sri.Gireesh Kumar – learned Central Government Counsel, initially submitted that the petitioner may not be disqualified from participating in tender, but then sought further time to confer with his client and obtain specific instructions in this regard.

4. I must, however, record that, if, as stated by Sri.M.V.S Nampoothiri, the petitioner is not allowed to participate in any work, then it amounts to virtual blacklisting. The learned Central Government Counsel will, therefore, also find out how this could be done without a process of blacklisting, or such other legally permissible measures as statutorily prescribed, merely because the petitioner WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -9- is arrayed as an accused in a crime; but which, as rightly stated by him, has not ended to his detriment yet. Post on 23.01.2024.”

8. Today, Sri.V.Gireesh Kumar – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that the petitioner has not been blacklisted; and that there is no restriction on his participation in any tendering processes in future and that he can do so if his ‘Firm’ is registered in the Online ‘GeM’ Portal, as is required for everyone else. He explained that, what is stated in Ext.P12 was only by way of abundant caution because, there is an investigation by the ‘CBI’ into certain instances against the petitioner, which is still pending before a competent Trial Court.

9. In the afore circumstances, it is now luculent that nothing remains for this Court to adjudicate on its merits, particularly when the WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -10- learned Central Government Counsel submits unequivocally that the petitioner does not stand blacklisted or restricted from taking part in future tendering processes, on account of Ext.P12. Resultantly, and since the learned Central Government Counsel, or the learned Standing Counsel for the ‘CBI’, have no case that the loss found against the petitioner is in excess of Rs.87,783/- - which, of course, also has not yet been conclusively proved, because the trial is still pending - I am certain that the petitioner is entitled to relief in the following manner: (a) I record the submissions of the learned Central Government Counsel – Sri.V.Gireesh Kumar, that the petitioner has not been blacklisted or denied opportunity to participate in future competitive bids and tendering WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -11- processes, in spite of Ext.P12. (b) The competent respondents are directed to immediately release the Bank Guarantee of the petitioner, on him submitting it with a fresh one for an amount of Rs.87,783/-. This shall be done forthwith, on such a Bank Guarantee being furnished. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -12- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33245/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R DATED 8/2/2018 IN CRIME NO. RC 2A/2018/BI/ACB/COCHIN. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/4/2019 IN W.P. (C) NO.9308/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/9/2020 IN CONT. CASE (C) NO. 1041/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/2/2020 IN CRL. M.C. NO. 5670/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CBI ON 30/12/2021. TRUE COPY OF THE AUTO GENERATED REQUEST DATED 18.04.2019 SENT TO INTAS PHARMA, BY THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY CIPLA HEALTH FORMS DATED 15.05.2020. TRUE COPY OF THE AUTO GENERATED NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE STOCKIEST AGREEMENT ISSUED BY ELI LILLY AND CO. INDIA PVT.LTD., DATED 19.03.2020. TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RS. 47,64,000/-. TRUE COPY OF THE BOND FOR RS. 47,64,000/- EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. WP(C) NO. 33245 OF 2022 -13- EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL REPRESENTATION DATED 23/05/2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. COMMUNICATION MADE BY DIRECTOR CGHS AND ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CGHS THROUGH EMAIL.