JUDGMENT :

SANJAY AGRAWAL, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P/12) passed by the respondents-Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the CSPTCL) in so far as it relates to termination and debarring the Petitioner for a period of 2 years from participating in future tenders with its Company, i.e. CSPTCL.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on 08.09.2022 submitted, as recorded in the order, that the only issue involved in this petition is as to whether the respondents are justified in blacklisting the petitioner for a period of two years or not.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 floated an e-tender Notice No. 1409 dated 29.10.2021, Tender No. TR-21/05 for the works of “construction of 132/22 KV sub-station at Betar, District Bemetara, sub-station comprising 2 Nos. 132/33 KV, 40 KVA Power Transformer, 5 Nos. 132 KV bays and 9 Nos. 33 KV bays on turnkey basis.” The said work was to be completed within a period of 15 months from the date of handover of the site and the prospective bidder had to deposit an Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- for participation in the said work. The Petitioner participated in it while forming a Joint Venture and submitted a bid on 22.11.2021 and, the bids were opened on 07.12.2021 wherein the technical bid of the Petitioner was opened successfully. Thereafter, a Letter of Award was issued to the Petitioner on 26.04.2022 (Annexure P/5) by the Respondent-CSPTCL intimating that the contract for the construction of sub-station was awarded to it for a total value of Rs. 16,51,85,777.40 and thereafter, three work orders were issued to it on 02.05.2022 (Annexure P/6) for supply, civil works and erection, but the Petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions mentioned therein and, therefore, no conclusive contract came into existence between the parties.

4. It is pleaded further by the Petitioner that owing to the onset of the third wave of Covid-19 pandemic, break-out of Russia-Ukraine war and other geo-political reasons, the raw material for execution of the works under contract became unavailable leading to supply crisis and it is, therefore, impossible to perform the work. As such, the Petitioner vide letter dated 11.05.2022 (Annexure P/7) informed the Respondents that it had decided to withdraw its bid. However, the Respondents in response to it, invoked clause 7(I) of the tender document, instead of invoking clause 2.3 vide its letter dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P/8) and threatened the Petitioner to terminate the contract and debar it for a period of 2 years, apart from forfeiting the EMD in case the Petitioner fails to complete the contractual formalities. It is pleaded further that without considering the response of the Petitioner in the light of the said clause 2.3 of the tender document for forfeiting the EMD only, issued another show-cause notice dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P/10) proposing the action of termination, forfeiture of EMD and debarring the Petitioner for a period of 2 years to have a business with it.

5. In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner vide its reply dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure P/11) reiterated its contention that it cannot be debarred as such, except to forfeit the said EMD only under clause 2.3 of the tender document. It is, therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the order impugned, dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P/12) as passed by the Respondents while terminating the contract and debarring the petitioner for a period of 2 years from participating in the future tenders with the Respondents, apart from forfeiting the EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/- under clause 7(I) of the tender document, is liable to be set aside.