IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WA.No. 1011 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6024/2009 Dated 12/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M/S.VHB LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED, 40-B/2,SHANKARA SMRUTHI,SIR BHALACHANDRA ROAD, DADAR (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 014. BY ADV. SRI.A.M. SHAFIQUE(SR.) SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED,NRHM BUILDING, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K. MEERA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1011 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12th March, 2009 rejecting the writ petition, the present writ appeal is filed. 3. The appellant had challenged the rejection of its tender by the State Government on the ground of its being disqualified as per clause 2(e) of the tender conditions. Though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to make a distinction between 'debarring' as found in Annexure B and 'blacklisting' as per clause 2(e) to contend that it is only debarring for a limited period and not permanent blacklisting which is the mandatory requirement under clause 2(e), we find no merit in the said contention. Annexure B Circular dated 08.05.2006 indicates that for a period of five years starting from the date 08.05.2006 the W.A. No.1011 of 2009 - 2 - appellant was debarred or prohibited from having the business relations for Health and Family Welfare Department and all other Departments concerning the Health and Family Welfare Department, which is same as blacklisting though for a limited period.. Even though the debarment is for a limited period for all the purposes, it prohibits the appellant from having any business with Health and Family Welfare Department. At the time of consideration of its tender the appellant was prohibited and thus can be said to be blacklisted for a limited period. The other ground against the appellant is that Annexure B order has become final. The learned Single Judge has considered this in its proper perspective and we find no merits in the present contention of the appellant. Hence the writ appeal stands rejected. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns