IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Isan Corporation - Petitioner
Versus
National Highways Authority of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15985 of 2022, 13467, 18050 of 2023, W.P.(C) 15986 of 2022, 13273, 17991 of 2023, W.P.(C) 14882 of 2022 and CM APPL. 45746 of 2022, 4295 of 2023
Decided On : 13-04-2023
NHAI - Tender for Consultancy Services - Bharat Mala Project - NHAI/PC/1 - The judgment discusses the deficiencies in the tender documents submitted by the Petitioners, the show cause notice issued by NHAI, and the subsequent debarment of the Petitioners. The court analyzes the deficiencies, the NHAI's policy on penalty actions, and the proportionality of the debarment.
Fact of the Case:
The NHAI floated a tender for consultancy services under the Bharat Mala Project. The Petitioners, a consortium, were declared successful bidders and entered into a Consultant's Contract Agreement with NHAI. The Petitioners faced issues with the submission of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) and were subsequently debarred by NHAI.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were deficiencies in the tender documents submitted by the Petitioners, and the NHAI's show cause notice and subsequent debarment were not arbitrary or perverse. The court also noted that the matter should be resolved through the dispute resolution clause in the contract.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the deficiencies in the tender documents, the NHAI's show cause notice, and the debarment of the Petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deficiencies and the NHAI's actions were not suitable for review in writ jurisdiction and should be resolved through the dispute resolution clause. The court also considered the proportionality of the debarment based on the NHAI's policy on penalty actions.
Final Decision: The court directed that the debarment of Isan Korea should be restricted to the period already elapsed, allowing them to bid in future contracts. However, the debarment of Isan India and the consortium member Specialised was upheld, and the parties were relegated to the disputes resolution clause.
JUDGMENT :
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The NHAI floated a tender as a part of the Bharat Mala Project under the Bharat Mala Scheme for engaging entities to provide consultancy services, for the preparation of the ‘Detailed Project Report’ (DPR).
3. The Petitioners-Isan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (‘Isan India’) and Specialized Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., (‘Specialised’) which had formed a consortium, had submitted their bid and were declared successful bidders. Pursuant to this, a ‘Consultant's Contract Agreement’ (hereinafter ‘the agreement’) dated 11th May, 2017 was entered into between the Petitioner-consortium and NHAI. The said agreement described the project as under:
4. In terms of the contract, various deadlines were fixed for submission of the report. The said deadlines are explained in the form of days from the date of the contract at page 411 of the counter affidavit of NHAI in WP (C) 15986/2022. The same are set out below—
Schedule for submission of Reports and Documents
| Stage No. | Activity | No. of copies |
|
|
| Category-I Packages | Category-II Packages | |||
| 1. | Monthly Reports | 3 | by 10th day of every month | by 10th day of month |
| 2. | Inception Report | |||
| (i) Draft Inception Report including QAP document | 3 | 21 | 21 | |
| (ii) Inception Report including QAP document | 3 | 30 | 30 | |
| 3. | F.S. REPORT | |||
|
| (i) Draft Feasibility Study Report including option study report | 4 | 90 | 45 |
| (ii) Comments of client | 1 | 105 | 60 | |
| (iii) Final Feasibility Study Report incorporating Compliance of comments of Client. | 4 | 120 | 75 | |
| 4. | Technical Schedules for EPC/PPP Projects | 4 | 130 | 90 |
| 5. | Detailed Project Report | |||
|
| (i) Draft DPR | 4 | 150 | 90 |
| (ii) Comments of client | 4 | 165 | 105 | |
| (iii) Final DPR incorporating compliance of comments of Client | 6 | 180 | 120 | |
| 6. | Project clearances from concerned agencies e.g. from MOEF; Rly for approval of GAD and detail engineering drawing of ROB/RUB; Irrigation Dpt., Land Acquisitioins-3(a), 3(A), 3(D) Notifications | Original letters from the concerned agencies and 5 photocopies of each
3 copies each | 210 | 150 |
5. The consortium had to make site visits, conduct topographic surveys and commence work for preparation of the report. The final deadline was 210 days for the submission of the DPR. The writ petitions have exhaustively set out the details of the correspondence between the consortium and the NHAI. It is not in doubt that a draft feasibility report was, for the first time, submitted in February, 2018. However, in view of the urgency involved in the matter, the NHAI appears to have requested the Petitioner-consortium for the submission of the tender documents. The Petitioner submitted the tender documents consisting of the format, template, etc. which were to be part of the DPR, on 21st December, 2017. The tender was floated on 28th December, 2017, however, the draft report was given for the first time in February, 2018. In the meantime, the DPR preparation cont
Gorkha Security Services v. Government of (NCT of Delhi)
Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific reasoning for debarment, the principles of debarment under GFR, 2017 Rule 151, and the balance of interests between th....
The court upheld the debarment of the petitioner for failing to submit a performance guarantee on time, affirming the procedural fairness and adherence to the RFP guidelines.
Fraudulent practices in securing a contract vitiate the process, and completion of the contract does not absolve the petitioner of liability. The authority has the right to debar the petitioner as pe....
Misrepresentation of facts at the time of bidding amounted to fraudulent practice, justifying the debarment of the joint venture consortium.
The necessity of a specific show cause notice for blacklisting and the requirement to state the proposed action.
The judgment established the requirement of a valid, particularized and unambiguous Show-Cause Notice for blacklisting and the discretion of the High Court to entertain a writ petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.