The court emphasized that the contract between the petitioner and respondents was void as it was executed in violation of the provisions of DMC Act and instructional Order dated 12. 2. 1992, leading to the quashing of the debarment order and direction to refund the security amount forfeited from the petitioner.

( 1 ) BY way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order dated 14. 10. 1996. A restraint is also sought against the respondents from acting in pursuance to the impugned order dated 14. 10. 1996. A direction is also soughtagainst the respondents to restore the status quoante as before 14. 10. 1996 with regard to status of the petitioner as contractor with the respondents in connection with execution of the works of the respondents and allow him to tender and execute the public work.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts of this case are that petitioner was registered as Class-III contractor with Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking (hereinafter called as said Undertaking) since 1970. The said undertaking was one of the constituents /undertaking of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, statutory authority constituted under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. All rights, liabilities, staff, assets, orders, notifications, bye-laws, functions etc. of the said undertaking were transferred to and taken over by Delhi Jal Board, constituted under Section 4 of the Delhi Jal Board Act, 1998 w. e. f. 6. 4. 1998. Thus, the Delhi Jal Board is liable and responsible for the consequences of all the acts, deeds and things done by said undertaking. The said undertaking invited tenders for the execution of the work named and styled as "remodelling of Bhagat Singh Road Drain, Shahdara, Delhi, through the Executive Engineer (C) DR-IX/ respondent No. 4 vide NTT No. 12/ 95-96 dated 5. 1. 1996. In response to this, the petitioner submitted his most competitive rates for the subject work which were 15. 52% below the estimated cost of Rs. 15,89,040/ -. The tenders were opened on 7. 2. 1996. The validity of the tender of the petitioner was upto 8. 6. 1996. For making a valid and binding contract/acceptance the tender of petitioner was to be approved and accepted by the Competent authority i. e. the WS and SD Committee on or before 8. 6. 1996. The Executive engineer, respondent No. 4, posted a Letter of Intent dated 6. 6. 1996 to the petitioner stating therein the tender of petitioner has been accepted by the Competent authority. During the span of 5 months w. e. f. February, 1996 to July, 1996, the rates of labours and materials were abnormally increased. There was also increase in petrol and diesel prices by the Central Government and Royalty on coarse sand and stone aggregate by the Haryana Government. In these circumstances, the rates quoted by the petitioner were rendered totally unworkable. The petitioner did not agree to act upon Letter of Intent dated 6. 6. 1996 and acceptance letter dated 10. 7. 1996 and refused to undertake the work and did not sign the agreement for the reasons that the tender of the petitioner was approved and accepted by the competent Authority vide decision No. 2811/dws and SDU dated 2. 7. 1996 i. e. after the expiry of the validity of petitioner s tender, which is contrary to provisions of sections 202 and 203 of Delhi Municipal Act, 1959 and relevant bye-laws and regulations. The Letter of Intent dated 6. 6. 1996 and the acceptance letter dated 10. 7. 1996 are without jurisdiction, illegal and unlawful. Instructions contained in letter No. ENG/c/iii/92/1111734 dated 12. 2. 1992 clearly provided that "letter of intent should be issued only after obtaining the approval of the Competent authority". On the insistence of respondent No. 4 to execute the work and agreement, the petitioner refused to do so by letter dated 18. 9. 1996. The respondents by order dated 14. 10. 1996 debarred the petitioner from tendering with the respondents for a period of 2 years and forfeited the earnest money of Rs. 40,000/ - without affording an opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice to him. The petitioner made various requests to the respondents to withdraw the impugned order dated 14. 10. 1996. The respondents did not respond to the requests of petitioner in writing yet they assured