The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'enough material' to proceed with debarment, emphasizing integrity and transparency in public procurement.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--This petition seeks to challenge the Impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.08.2022 (Impugned OM) passed by respondent No.1, i.e. Union of India.

2. The petitioner No.1 is a registered society of builders and contractors of national highways, state highways and bridges in the organised sector all over the country. The petitioner No.1 body comprises of 87 members, list thereof, has been placed on record. It is the petitioners' case that respondent No. 1/UOI and 3 i.e. National Highways Authority of India ("NHAI") have started initiating proceedings for debarment against them pursuant to the impugned OM. Respondent No.3 had issued a Show Cause Notice ("SCN") dated 30.08.2022 to petitioner No.2 i.e. GHV (India) Pvt. Ltd. seeking to initiate debarment proceedings on account of registration of case by Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") against employees of Petitioner No.2 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners therefore, not only challenged the SCN but also challenged the legality of the impugned OM. For the sake of clarity, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners are being reproduced as under:

"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition and any other writ or order or direction in the nature thereof directing and prohibiting the Respondents from enforcing/implementing, in any manner whatsoever, the Impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.08.2022 issued by Respondent No. 1;"

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to ensure that the provisions of the General Finance Rules, 2017 are followed in their entirety and the Respondents shall not take any action whatsoever on the basis of the Impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.08.2022;

(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order in the direction thereof directing/holding that any/all proceedings initiated basis/pursuant to the Impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.08.2022 are annulled and declared to be non-existent having no existence in the eyes of law and not to be proceeded with any further in any manner whatsoever; and

(iv) Pass any such order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the Impugned OM is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in as much as the same does not prescribe any fair procedure and leaves sufficient room for the authority to act arbitrarily. According to him, in the guise of clarification, the respondent-authorities cannot completely alter the General Financial Rules 2017 (`GFR. 2017), and introduce an altogether different scheme for debarment of the concerned contractor. He further submits that the impugned OM is contrary to Rule 151 of GFR, 2017, and is also against the Guidelines on Debarment dated 02.11.2021, issued by the concerned Ministry. According to him, unless the guilt or culpability of the concerned company or its officers is proved, no inference can be drawn so as to conclude that the concerned company or its officers are in breach of the Code of Integrity (COI). He further states that the original Rule 175 of GFR, 2017 or the basic Guidelines on Debarment nowhere stipulate that merely on the basis of lodging of an FIR, an order of debarment can be passed. According to him, there has to be a proper application of mind, depending upon the material available, so as to positively infer that the concerned company or its officers are in the breach of COI. He has taken this court through various clauses of Rule 151 of GFR, 2017 and various Guidelines issued by the concerned Ministry. He has also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar & Ors.. (2018) 9 SCC 624 and the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) No.252 of 2018.

4. Learned coun