Debarment orders must be communicated to the affected party, and the Debarment Committee must afford a hearing for the debarment to sustain.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner - Royal Electrical Company, A-771, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052, stated to be a registered government contractor, challenges the impugned circular dated 25th November, 2019 whereby the Petitioner has been debarred for a period of 5 years by the Delhi Jal Board (`DJB').

3. The work order dated 4th January, 2018 was awarded to the Petitioner for the purpose of renovation of the electrical system of the Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) at sector 17 Rohini. The total value of the work order was Rs.2,48,127/- (Rupees Two Lakh forty eight thousand one hundred and twenty seven). The DJB issued show cause notice on 2nd April, 2019 seeking reasons as to why the Petitioner ought not to be blacklisted/removed/temporarily suspended from the list of approved contractors on the ground that some of the work, which was allegedly claimed to have been carried out by the Petitioner, had turned out to be bogus/fictitious. A reply was given by the Petitioner to the said show cause notice, on 16th April, 2019 explaining that the work order was actually executed to the satisfaction of the officials of the DJB. A hearing was given by the Executive Engineer, (SDW) IX, DJB. However, thereafter, no debarment order was communicated except the impugned circular dated 25th November, 2019.

4. The submission of Ms. Mehrotra, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is five fold-

i. That the impugned circular relies upon a debarment order dated 15th November, 2019, which had not been communicated to the Petitioner.

ii. The Debarment Committee did not give a hearing to the Petitioner. A hearing was only given by the Engineer concerned.

iii. In a connected matter, where a similarly placed party was debarred, the file noting was relied upon by the DJB, which cannot constitute an order.

iv. The work was executed to the satisfaction of the concerned engineer.

v. The allegation of bogus/fictitious work is not maintainable, inasmuch as the 12 exhaust fans, which were to be supplied, were in fact, supplied by the Petitioner.

5. She submits that under similar circumstances, ld. Single Judges of this Court have set aside the debarment order in

• `Kamlesh Engineering Works v. Delhi Jal Board, Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi', [W.P.(C) 10052/2021 vide Order dated 16th August 2022]
• `M/s. Vardhaman Trading Company v. Delhi Jal Board, Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi', [W.P.(C) 4570/2021 decided on 28th September 2022] and
• `M/s Paras Sales v. Delhi Jal Board, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi', [W.P.(C) 4455/2021 decided on 28th September 2022]

6. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the DJB submits that the show cause notice clearly specifies the grounds on which the debarment was contemplated. The reply was also considered and the matter was taken up by the Debarment Committee on the recommendation of the Managing Director (MD)/CEO.

7. It is further submitted by Ms. Agnihotri, that the DJB had found that several of its own employees may have been in collusion with some contractors and when this was unearthed by the DJB, the action of debarment was undertaken by the Respondent in consultation with the vigilance department. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the circular itself would have to be treated as a debarment order, inasmuch as the Petitioner is well aware of the reasons for which the debarment has been undertaken. She further submits that the principles of natural justice have been duly complied with.

8. A perusal of this record shows that the circular dated 25th November, 2019 reads as under:

"The Competent Authority vide orders dated 15-11-2019 has approved to Debar following firms including their Proprietor/Partner(s)/Director(s) from participation in any of the tenders to be issued by the Divisions/Office(s) of Delhi Jal Board and to have any business dealing with DJB by any means for the period mentioned against each firm from the date of issued of this circular.