MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON KHIZRA INDUSTRIES V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, Dec. 5 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Nov. 6:

1. Petitioner impugns the action of respondents whereby the bid of petitioner has been disqualified. Respondents had invited bids for procuring meat for feeding of carnivorous animals at Maharaja Martand Singh Judev White Tiger Safari Juhu Mukundpur for the year 2025-26.

2. Petitioner submitted his bid, however, by a status uploaded on the portal on 25.04.2025, petitioner was notified that his bid had been rejected as the same did not qualify the technical criteria. Petitioner give his representation, however, no response was given to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner filed the subject petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that bid was rejected as petitioner did not possess a valid licence for slaughter. It is stated that petitioner had a valid licence upto 31.03.2021 and thereafter there was no licence renewed or available with the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner concedes that licence of petitioner was valid only till 31.03.2021. He states that by a communication dated 20.01.2021, licence of petitioner was terminated wrongfully whereby petitioner was forced to file a writ petition before this Court being WP No.2205 of 2021 in which this Court granted stay of operation of order dated 20.01.2021. He submits that an application for renewal of licence has been filed before the authorities, however the same has till date not been allowed.

4. We note that the licence of petitioner was valid only upto 31.03.2021 and thereafter petitioner does not possess a licence for slaughter. The fact that petitioner had filed a petition earlier and there was an interim order, does not help the case of petitioner for the reason that the licence was terminated by communicated dated 20.01.2021, prior to its lapse on 31.03.2021. The interim order in favour of petitioner would have meant that the licence continued for the remaining period of its validity. Stay of termination of licnece does not ipso facto imply that the licence is renewed in perpetuity till the writ petition is disposed of.

5. Perusal of writ record of WP No.2205/2021 also shows that no steps have been taken by the petitioner for listing of the writ petition earlier or any other orders passed qua the same. Consequently, we are of the view that licence of petitioner which was valid upto 31.03.2021 has expired by efflux of time, even though the termination was stayed by an interim order.

6. Consequently, there is no error committed by the respondents in rejecting the bid of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner does not possess a valid licence for slaughter for the relevant period for which the bid was invited.

7. We find no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.