AJAY JALAN v. MECON LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
WPC/1421/2022 · 2025-09-02
Rajesh Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9875 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9875 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:26594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.1421 of 2022 ---- Ajay Jalan, Partner of Zeal India Chemicals, aged about- 45 years, Son of Paresh Jalan, Resident of-Aroma Palace, 2nd Floor Main Road, Behind Firayalal, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MECON Ltd. Ranchi, through its Chairman and Managing Director having its office at MECON Company, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Sr. Manager (CCES) & Convener, Vendor Evolution Committee, MECON Ltd. Ranchi, having its office at MECON Company, Ρ.Ο. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ----
For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Suraj Verma, Adv. For the Respondent(s)
: Mr. Amitabh, Adv. ----
04/Dated: 02nd September, 2025
1. Heard both the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
“a. For quashing of the observation made in the sanction letter issued by Chairman and Managing Director, MECON Ltd., Ranchi, (Annexure-5) meant for some other person wherein and whereunder the respondent authority without properly considering the materials has made certain observations regarding the petitioner company as the same is illegal, unwarranted and has been passed in utter violation of principal of Natural Justice. b. For quashing of the letter dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure- 15) whereby the respondent has suspended its business deal with the petitioner company with absurd terms which are unknown in the process of law. c. For a direction upon the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue its business deal with the party respondent as the petitioner since last 10 years has diligently performed all the deals assigned to it to the satisfaction of the respondent and is having a complete and clean work record.”
3. The order dated 01.06.2022 reads as under:-
“Present interlocutory application has been filed for allowing the petitioner company to participate in the tender process
2025:JHHC:26594
Page | 2
W.P. (C) No.1421 of 2022
floated by the respondent-MECON vide ITT No.11.74. Misc/IH/2022-24/012 dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure I.A.-2). The ground has been taken that earlier the petitioner company has been debarred from participating in the tender process floated by respondent MECON and this debarring order has been extended vide order dated 07.10.2021 (Annexure-15 to this writ petition) for a further a period of six months.
The said period has come to an end but in spite of that, he is being not allowed to participate in the tender process. On the other hand, learned counsel for the MECON has submitted that the matter is under process, since document has been seized by the C.B.I. and as such, no final decision could be taken till date. Be that as it may, it is a fact that no adverse order is existing today against the petitioner. Further, it is also settled law that debarment from participating in the tender process can’t be for indefinite period. Considering the above fact, present interlocutory application stands allowed and the respondent-MECON is directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process floated by the respondent-MECON vide ITT No.11.74. Misc/IH/2022- 24/012 dated 20.05.2022, subject to the result of present writ petition.”
4. It is admitted position between the parties that the petitioner and the respondents have contractual relationship with regard to the certain tender process. On the strength of employer-employee relationship, while granting sanction, in criminal case, certain order has been passed against the employee by the respondents namely Mr. U.N. Mandal (the then Senior Manager). Further, the departmental proceeding is going on. 5. In view of the above facts, it is evident that whatever has been stated while granting sanction against Mr. U.N. Mandal as because he is an employee of the organization, has no meaning for the present petitioner. 6. With above observation and declaration, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded