IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Limitation – Cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise to a legal right – Debarment orders form a continuous cause of action.
(2) Section 80 of CPC is irrelevant in case of continuous cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellants challenge order dated 08.01.2024 in G.A. No. 11 of 2022 in C.S. No. 102 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta allowed the application filed by the present Respondent/original Applicant seeking amendment of plaint and dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter “CPC”] for incorporating the amendment and prayer by way of amendment in the original plaint.

3. At the outset, it is imperative to take note of the relevant background facts and the chequered litigation history between the parties that are germane to the present dispute.

BACKGROUND

4. Appellant No. 4 / Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department [hereinafter “PWD”], Kolkata floated a tender on 04.12.2013 for the strengthening of the Howrah-Amta Road from 7.90 Km to 11.80 Km [hereinafter “the Project”]. The Respondent emerged as the successful applicant and accordingly, an agreement was entered into by Appellant No. 4 and the Respondent on 23.04.2014, wherein the stipulated date for completion was 19.08.2014. The work was not completed by the stipulated date, and accordingly the Appellant No. 4 extended the timeline for the project while imposing a penalty rate. Ultimately, on 14.05.2015 Respondent’s security deposit came to be forfeited in light of non-completion of work.

5. Vide order dated 07.07.2015, Appellant No. 4 debarred the Respondent from participating in any tender floated by it for the next two years [hereinafter “the First Debarment Order”]. The First Debarment Order was set aside by the High Court at Calcutta¹[WP(C) No. 1043 of 2015] on the consideration that the Respondent was not put on notice. Consequently, Appellant No. 4 issued a show-cause notice dated 18.09.2015 for debarment to the Respondent and issued a memo dated 08.03.2016, requesting the latter to appear before the Debarment Committee.

6. Aggrieved by memo dated 08.03.2016, Respondent preferred a civil suit, being C.S. No. 102 of 2016 [hereinafter “Civil Suit”], along with an application for an injunction, being G.A. No. 1339/2016, before the High Court at Calcutta. In the Civil Suit, the Respondent challenged the authority of the Appellants in issuing the memo requesting appearance in the debarment proceedings on the ground that the penalty for debarment is outside the scope of the contract in question and dehors the same. The Respondent also relied on the penalty amount imposed by the Appellants for the same cause of action to buttress its position. Further, and more critically, the Respondent claims that it has suffered a loss of around Rs. 2,21,61,296/- on account of the First Order of Debarment, which was wrongfully imposed. The Respondent has made several other claims which are not important to go into in this appeal.

7. The High Court at Calcutta disposed of G.A. No. 1339/2016 while granting liberty to the Respondent to contest all grounds, including that of jurisdiction and composition before the Debarment Committee itself. Thereafter, for the next two years the Committee issued orders dated 01.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 22.05.2017, and finally on 31.10.2017 [hereinafter “Underlying Debarment Order”], debarring the Respondent from participating in any tender floated by it for the next two years. Orders dated 01.12.2016, 06.03.2017, and 22.05.2017, were respectively set aside by the High Court at Calcutta vide orders dated 06.02.2017²[GA No. 84 of 2017 in CS No. 102 of 2016], 22.03.2017³[GA No. 877 of 2017 in CS No. 102 of 2016], and 02.08.2017⁴[GA No. 2416 of 2017 in CS No. 102 of 2016] on the ground of procedural lapses on the part of the Appellants in conducting the Debarment proceedings. Finally, against the Underlying Debarment Order, the Respondent preferred G.A. No. 173 of 2018 in C.S. No. 102 of 2016 which came to be rejected vide order dated 24.01.2020, wherein the High Court at Calcutta observed -