SHEO KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Amitabh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner's firm is supplier of medicine and was supplying the medicine as per rate contract. Certain information regarding irregularity in supplying of substandard items were brought into the notice of the Government and the First Information Report was lodged under Section 120B and 420 I.P.C. with Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and the matter was referred to CBI, and after investigation charge sheet was submitted before the Competent Court in which Surender Chaudhary, the then, director of the petitioner's firm was found guilty. The Central Purchase Committee constituted in respect of the supply of the medicine took a decision by rejecting the unqualified tender of the petitioner's company with the reason that the CBI case was pending against the firm and passed the order impugned directing the authorities is concerned not to purchase the medicine from the petitioner's firm. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner by means of present writ petition have challenged the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 contained as annexure no.6 of the writ petition, with the prayer to quash the order in question with further prayer to issue order, commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as supplier of medicine. The State of U.P. has issued the purchase policy for the purchase of medicine. The local purchase on the rate contract is regulated under the provisions of clause 9 of the purchase policy which is reproduced as under:- " 9-Supply should be same according to the sample deposited at the time of tender, in the short term tender notice. 14. Firms should give an affidavit that there is no Court Case/Vigilance Case/CBI Case pending against the firm. All the documents given in the tender are true. If found false/fake the person who is giving affidavit is fully responsible. Any action taken against person/firms will be accepted. (court case means " criminal case" against firm/board of director/director/principle stock holder as per relevant laws.)"
(3.) While dealing the matter in writ petition no. 3611 (MB) of 2011 and other similar writ petitions, this Court passed an order to enquire in the matter of execution and implementation of National Rural Health Mission in respect of utilization of the funds so given by the Government of India through Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. In compliance of the said order, Central Bureau of Investigation had registered the case for preliminary inquiry as mentioned above and investigated the case and submitted a chargesheet in the Competent Court against Surender Chaudhary, the then, Director of the petitioner's firm and other co-accused.;