( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) HAVING regard to the urgency of the matter, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties it is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.

( 3 ) THE challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the validity and propriety of order dated 3 January 2003 passed by the Secretary, contractors Registration Board, Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 1 herein, debarring the petitioner for a period of five years for his alleged misconduct with one of their officers on duty. By virtue of the said order all the directors of the petitioner company also stand debarred. It has also been directed that no tender papers shall be issued to the petitioner and no work shall be awarded to them from the date of issue of the said order.

( 4 ) THE Delhi Development Authority ( for short the DDA) and one V. K. Kapoor, Assistant Engineer (Electrical), DDA, the officer involved in the incident, have been impleaded as respondents 1 and 3 respectively, besides the Contractors registration Board ( crb for short ).

( 5 ) SINCE the case has a chequered history, in order to appreciate the rival stands, it would be necessary to notice the background facts in greater details, which are as follows:

( 6 ) SOME time in April 2001, the DDA issued a notice inviting tenders (for short the NIT) from approved contractors/specialised firms for supply and installation of clear water boosting pumping station at command tank-I Dwarka, Delhi. In response to the said notice, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, claiming to be a specialised firm in the field, submitted its tender on 10 April 2001.

6. 2 on 21 May 2001 petitioner s Director, namely, Ashok Sehgal, visited the Divisional Office of the DDA in connection with an outstanding payment for the work completed by the company sometime in April 2000. It appears that some heated exchanges took place between Ashok Sehgal and said V. K. Kapoor. It was alleged that Ashok Sehgal insisted that the file pertaining to the said old payment be handed over to him for taking it to the next office for further processing, which V. K. Kapoor refused to do. This resulted in physical fight between Ashok Sehgal and V. K. Kapoor. V. K. Kapoor sustained injury near his right eye. An FIR was lodged by v. K. Kapoor against Ashok Sehgal for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 186, 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Ashok Sehgal also lodged an FIR against V. K. Kapoor. A departmental inquiry was conducted by the executive Engineer (HQ) of the DDA. The Inquiry Officer found the version of v. K. Kapoor to be correct and opined that the allegations of demand of money levelled by Ashok Sehgal against V. K. Kapoor and registration of FIR by him were in retaliation. Both the said FIRs are still pending investigation.

6. 3 the bids submitted by the bidders in response to NIT issued in April 2001 were opened on 23 July 2001 and the petitioner was declared to be the successful bidder. Vide DDA s letter dated 3 August 2001 the petitioner was asked to furnish evidence in regard to its financial capabilities along with a bank solvency certificate.

6. 4 on 28 August 2001 the Project Manager (Electrical) of the DDA wrote to the Secretary, CRB requesting for appropriate action against the petitioner in the light of the inquiry report, referred to above. The Works Advisory Board meeting took place on 25 October 2001 wherein it was resolved that the petitioner should not be considered for award of the tender and instead the work should be awarded to the next lowest bidder, as a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner for the incident which had taken place on 21 May 2001.

6. 5 the decision of the Works Advisory Committee not to award the work to them despite being the lowest tenderer, was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition (WP (C) 6957/01 ). Vide order dated 10 July 2002 a Division Bench of thi