Debarment actions require adherence to natural justice; exclusion of intra-group sales from GGR calculations is not mandated under the PLI Scheme, making debarring unjustified.

JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface:

Submissions of the Counsels:

Reasons and Analysis:

Conclusion:

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Preface:

1. The above-captioned appeals, though, preferred against two separate judgements passed by the learned Single Judge, are inextricably interconnected; an aspect which will emerge once the broad facts are set forth by us.

1.1. The first appeal i.e., LPA 327/2022 has been preferred by an entity going by the name JBM Ecolife Mobility Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "JBM Ecolife"]. This appeal has been lodged against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.05.2022 passed in WP(C) 6708/2022 [hereafter referred to as the "first impugned judgement"]. Via the first impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of JBM Ecolife.

1.2. The second appeal i.e., LPA 500/2022 has been preferred by the Union of India [hereafter referred to as "UOI"] against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2022 passed in WP(C) 8047/2022 [hereafter referred to as the "second impugned judgment"]. Via this judgment the learned Single Judge quashed two communications i.e., letters dated 25.04.2022 and 29.04.2022 which had been issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries [hereafter referred to as "MHI"] and Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "IFCI Ltd."], respectively. Pertinently, this writ petition had been filed by a sister concern of JBM Ecolife i.e., an entity going by the name JBM Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "JBM Electric"]. The reason JBM Electric had approached the learned Single Judge for relief, centred around its grievance that it (and by association, all companies which were part of the JBM Group, which included JBM Ecolife) had been debarred from participation in all future tenders and the interconnected Production Linked Incentive Scheme [hereafter referred to as "PLI Scheme"] up until 31.03.2027.

1.3. Thus, the net effect of the second impugned judgment is that the debarment directive issued by MHI on 25.04.2022, which was communicated to JBM Electric by IFCI Ltd. on 29.04.2022, is no longer operable; at least not for the moment. Much will depend, though, upon the outcome of the instant appeals.

1.4. JBM Electric's sister concern i.e., JBM Ecolife had preferred the appeal (i.e., LPA 327/2022) against the dismissal of its writ petition by the learned Single Judge via the first impugned judgment at the point in time when debarment directive issued against JBM Electric was in operation. The main thrust of its appeal was that it had been knocked out of the race for being awarded the subject contract, although it had tendered the lowest bid, albeit, only on the ground that its sister concern i.e., JBM Electric had been debarred/blacklisted. The learned Single Judge via the first impugned judgment had refused to grant any relief to JBM Ecolife, as according to him, its ouster from the race was a "self-activating" eventuality which got triggered the moment its sister concern i.e., JBM Electric was debarred/blacklisted. In the process the learned Single Judge rejected the pleas advanced on behalf of JBM Ecolife that its ouster was illegal as it violated the basic norms of principles of natural justice i.e., it had neither been served any show cause notice n