IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1254 of 2009 (M/S) M/s A.B.C. India Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents Mr. Saurabh Basu with Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner’s company 20 days time to purchase the tender form. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent’s company to remove the black listing of the petitioner’s company. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents company to make the petitioner eligible to apply 2 in the tender by removing the ban as the order of banning has been quashed by Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 11.06.2009. (iv) issue such other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; so that justice be done. (v) award cost of the writ petition throughout to the petitioner as against the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 07.09.2006 the petitioner’s company was black listed and was banned for business dealing. This order was challenged in writ petition (C) no.1562 of 2007 which was finally allowed on 11th June, 2009 and order dated 07.09.2006 was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the meantime tender notice was published in Newspaper in Hindustan Times in which period of sale for tender document was from 3rd July, 2009 to 24th July, 2009. The petitioner could not purchase tender document as the respondents-ONGC did not remove the black list of the petitioner’s company. He prayed that respondents be directed to grant petitioner’s company 20 days time to purchase tender form. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner was not restricted in any manner from purchasing the tender document and petitioner himself is at fault by not 3 purchasing the tender document within time. Pre-bid conference has already been held on 30th July, 2009 as mentioned in the tender notice and now petitioner cannot be permitted to apply. This court is satisfied with the argument of learned Senior Advocate and is of the view that no mandamus can be issued to the respondents for extending the date for sale of tender document. Thus, relief prayed for in prayer no.1 cannot be granted. So far prayer no.2 & 3 are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the petitioner may be permitted to submit representation before the respondent-ONGC for removing the black listing of the petitioner’s company in view of the judgment given by Guwahati High Court on 11.06.2009 in writ petition (C) no.1562 of 2007. Respondents counsel does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer. Therefore, the petitioner’s company is permitted to file a fresh representation before the ONGC within a period of two weeks’ from today. In case said representation is filed within a period of two weeks, same shall be decided by the respondents by also considering the Guwahati High Court judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.K.Bist. J,) 18.08.2009 Arti