The court upheld the banning order based on the violation of the Integrity Pact and directed the refund of forfeited Security Deposit/Earnest Money Deposits, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the terms of the Integrity Pact.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - These petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the Communication dated 06.06.2018 of the respondent by which the petitioners were banned by the respondent from all business dealings with it, for a period of six months. The petitioners further challenge the communication dated 19.06.2018 by which their representation against the abovementioned banning order had been rejected. The petitioners also pray for refund of the amount of security/earnest money deposit forfeited by the respondent.

2. The respondent by Notice Inviting Tender, dated 15.09.2017, invited quotation for Rate Contract for Hiring of Services for All India Material Transportation through Trucks and Trailers. The said tender was divided into 8 groups-4 groups for Trailer segment and 4 groups for Truck segment and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6827/2018 had participated in all 8 segments, while its subsidiary company, that is petitioner in W.P.(C) 7393/2018, had participated in 4 groups of trailer segment only. The price bids were opened by the respondent on 05.03.2018, however, the price bids of the petitioners were not opened and considered by the respondent. By a letter dated 16.03.2018, received from the Silchar office of the respondent in relation to another tender, the petitioners were informed that their price bids were not opened in view of the banning proceedings initiated against the petitioners in respect to the tender in question before this Court. By another communication dated 26.03.2018, the petitioners were informed that their bids in the tender in question had been rejected for violation of the Integrity Pact. The bank guarantees submitted by the petitioners as security deposit/EMD were also invoked and forfeited by the respondent and the same was informed to the petitioners on 27.03.2018. The respondent thereafter issued a Show Cause Notice dated 09.04.2018 to the petitioners alleging violation of Section 2 of the Integrity Pact. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, the Impugned Order banning the petitioners was passed by the respondent and thereafter their representation against the same was rejected by the Impugned Order dated 19.06.2018. As noted hereinabove, these communications have been challenged by the petitioners in the present set of petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the fact that the two petitioners are related to each other as holding company and wholly owned subsidiary company was in full knowledge of the respondent and, therefore, there was no concealment of this fact by the petitioners. He further submits that Section 2 of the Integrity Pact was amended by the respondent vide its circular dated 04.10.2016. The restriction on the holding of the subsidiary company participating in the tender was done away with by such amendment. Therefore, in his submission, the petitioners could not be held to have violated the Integrity Pact merely because of their relationship with each other. He further submits that merely because Mr. Pradeep Bansal has been authorized by both the petitioners for administrative convenience and Mr. Pradeep Bansal in turn authorized Mr. Narendra Sharma to submit the bid on behalf of the petitioner, CJ Darcl, it could not be said that bids have been submitted by the petitioners in collusion with each other.

4. He further submits that in any case, in terms of Clause 2 of Section 3 of the Integrity Pact, it is only where the transgression by the tenderer is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the banning order would be justified. He submits that in the present case, the Impugned Order passed by the respondent does not record such satisfaction and infact, proceeds on assumption rather than proof beyond doubt as is required under the Integrity Pact.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the report of the purported enquiry or the decision of the Tender Committee was not supplied to the petitioners, th