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 the parties involved.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 13966/2023 (for exemption)

2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3608/2023 and CM APPL. 13965/2023

3. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner- M/s V R Techniche Consultant Pvt. Ltd. against the Respondent- National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter 'NHAI') challenging the impugned order dated 10th March, 2023. By the said order, the NHAI has barred the Petitioner for a period of three years from participating/engagement in any future projects or bids of NHAI. The impugned debarment order dated 10th March, 2023 issued by the NHAI is extracted as under:

"ORDER

Sub: Debarring M/s VR Techniche Consultant Private Ltd. from Prequalification/particing/ engagement or bidding for future projects of/or to be undertaken by NHAI- reg.

It is brought to the notice of all Divisions/Units of NHAI that M/s VR Techniche Consultant Private Ltd. was awarded the consulting services work for preparation of a report on physical condition of the National Highways stretches under consideration for award on Toll Operate Transfer (Model) for Bundle-1 which included the Bhiladi-Jetpur Section of NH-8B in the State of Gujarat. The consultants did not observe any structural unsoundness and quality issue of the Major Bridge constructed over river Bhadar (114.00 LHS) and suggested very generic measures for its repair in the schedules and failed to provide any major interventions, which could have been added to the scope of the TOT concessionaire at the time of bidding and could have avoided inconvenience to public. Therefore, the Competent Authority has decided to debar M/s VR Techniche Consultant Private Ltd. for period of 3 (Three) years from a Participating/engagement in any future project/bid of NHAI projects of/or to be taken by it either directly or indirectly, effective from the date of this order. The brief details of M/s VR Techniche Consultant Private Ltd. is as under:

M/s VR Techniche Consultant Private Ltd.

1110. Advant Navis Business Park.

7, Sector - 142, Noida - 201305 (U.P.)"

4. The brief background is that the Petitioner is a consultancy firm which provides consulting, planning and engineering design services to commercial and government clients in the field of transportation infrastructure besides project management services for construction as well as periodic maintenance of highways, including routine operations and maintenance. The Petitioner in association with Indian Road Survey and Management Pvt. Ltd. (IRSM) submitted a bid on 19th April, 2017 for empanelment as an agency for preparation of a report on physical condition of the National Highways stretches under consideration for award on Toll Operate Transfer (ToT) model The said empanelment was awarded to the Petitioner on 26th April, 2017 for Bundle- I which comprised of 10 projects aggregating to almost 646km of length of roads and included the Bhiladi- Jetpur Section of NH-8B in the State of Gujarat.

5. The Petitioner then submitted to the Respondent on 5th September, 2017 a detailed project report including detailed checklists and schedules, observing no irregularities or defects in the physical condition of the Project. The said report was accepted by the NHAI. Thereafter tenders were also called by the NHAI in respect of further works for the said roads/bridges.

6. However, an independent assessment was carried out by the NHAI through CSIR-Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) sometime in 2021- 2022 which according to the Respondent pointed out various defects in the structure. According to the NHAI, the said report clearly showed that the construction defects were due to the contractor who had executed the project sometime in 2007. On the basis of the report, a show cause notice dated 21st October, 2022 was issued by the Respondent alleging that the technical credibility of the Petitioner was in question inasmuch as the deficiencie