SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Mohini Electricals Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Delhi Jal Board – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 11723/2021, C.M. APPL. No. 36235/2021
Decided On : 18-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Anusuya Salwan, Bankim Garg, Rachit Wadhwa, Sangeeta Bharti, Malvi Balyan.

The legal principle established is that prior to blacklisting or debarment, a show cause notice is mandatory, and debarment issued without notice and during the pandemic period is untenable.

Headnote:

Debarment - Construction Project - Office Memorandum dated 11th April, 2023 - MSME - Gorkha Security Services v. Government of (NCT of Delhi) - [Office Memorandum dated 11th April, 2023] - The court discussed the impugned circular debarment of the petitioner from participating in tenders issued by the Delhi Jal Board, the relevant office memorandum dated 11th April, 2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and the legal requirement of issuing a show cause notice prior to blacklisting or debarment. The court found that the debarment was issued without notice and fell during the pandemic period, making it untenable. The court set aside the impugned debarment circular dated 17th August, 2021.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, M/s Mohini Electricals Limited, challenged the impugned circular issued by the Respondent, Delhi Jal Board, debarred the Petitioner from participating in tenders for a construction project due to delays in project execution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the debarment was issued without notice and fell during the pandemic period, making it untenable. The period of debarment had also run its course, and the project was nearing completion.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the debarment without prior notice, the impact of the pandemic on project completion, and the applicability of the office memorandum dated 11th April, 2023 to the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the debarment issued without notice and during the pandemic period was untenable. The court also considered the applicability of the office memorandum dated 11th April, 2023 to the case.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned debarment circular dated 17th August, 2021 and allowed the Petition in the above terms.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner - M/s Mohini Electricals Limited challenging the impugned circular dated 17th August, 2021 issued by the Respondent - Delhi Jal Board (DJB). By the said circular, the Petitioner has been debarred from participating in any tenders of the DJB for a period of one year or till sufficient progress is achieved. The relevant portion of the circular is set out below:

    “The work of “Construction of 37.10 ML capacity master balancing reservoirs (MBR)/BPS at Palla” was awarded to the contractor firm M/s SNS Techno Corp Pvt. Ltd. (30% share) in. Joint Venture with M/s Mohini Electricals Ltd. (70% share).

The progress of Palla UGR work, awarded on 15.10.2018 having completion period of 24 months i.e. date of completion 30.09.2020 extended to 30.04.2021 due to Covid-19, is still not satisfactory. Present progress of the work is only 33% (approx.). Though, there were some initial delays due to change in the drawing to avoid tree cutting, ban on construction activity from NGT, restriction due to Covid-19 etc. yet the slow execution of work and progress by the agency has been major contributor in delay of Palla UGR work. Agency was served Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 04.08.2020 and reply submitted by the firm vide letter dated 11.08.2020 was not satisfactory. Agency was again asked vide CE (W) Project-I letter dated 23.06.2021 to expedite the progress of the work and submit revised bar chart to expedite the work which was replied by the agency vide letter dated 02.07.2021. However, the agency has not been adhering to its own given bar chart and progress of work is still very slow.

Hon'ble Minister (Water) also inspected the Palla UGR site on 09.07.2021 along, with Member (WS) and other senior officers. The progress of work was still not satisfactory. Agency has further been served Notices on 15.07.2021 under clause 10 of Contract Agreement for levy of compensation for the delay in work and under clause-11 for rescinding of work.’

Considering above facts including the replies of the Agency on record, it has been decided that M/s SNS Techno Corp Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mohini Electrical Ltd. should not be allowed to bid in future tenders of Delhi Jal Board for a period of one year or till sufficient progress is achieved in Palla MBR work, whichever is later.

This is issued with the approval of competent authority.”

3. The Petitioner was awarded a tender floated by the DJB for “Construction of 37.10. ML capacity Master Balancing Reservoir (MBR) IBPS at Palla” vide NIT No 02(2017-18) on 15th October, 2018.

4. An agreement between the parties was executed on 29th October, 2018 with a period of completion of 24 months for execution, three months for trial run and a ten years' period for operations and maintenance of the project. The completion date in terms of the agreement was 29th October, 2020. However, admittedly, there were delays in the execution of the project. According to the DJB, various notices were issued to the Petitioner to expedite the work. However, the same was not executed within time. Thereafter, the impugned circular dated 17th August, 2021 was issued to the Petitioner.

5. More than 18 months have passed since the issuance of the impugned circular. Today, Ms. Bharti, ld. Counsel submits that the project is almost reaching completion and since the debarment was only for a period of one year or till sufficient progress is achieved, the debarment order has run its course.

6. Ms. Salwan, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of the Petitioner is that no show cause notice was issued for the debarment/blacklisting and therefore that the debarment is itself contrary to law. It is further submitted that the drawings which were to be given to the Petitioner were given after the date for completion was ov

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top