The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, ruling that the lack of a hearing invalidated the termination of contracts and debarment actions taken against the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the impugned letters/communications issued by the National Highway Authority of India [NHAI / respondent] including the letter dated 18.03.2025 bearing no. CODIV-11036/2/2025-CO Division/Debar/10-A issued in regard to Balchera Fee Plaza (Annexure-P1) and letter dated 18.03.2025 bearing no. CODIV-11036/2/2025-CO Division/Debar/10-B issued in regard to the Kuchadi Fee Plaza and Okhamdi Fee Plaza (Annexure-P2).

2. Vide the above impugned letters / communications, the following action has been taken against the petitioner:-

i. the ongoing contract agreements between the parties, pursuant to which the petitioner operates the Balchera Fee Plaza, Kuchadi Fee Plaza and Okhamdi Fee Plaza as the user fee collection agency, have been terminated in terms of Clause 35(3) of the Contract Agreement between the parties;

ii. the petitioner has been debarred from participating in future tender/s issued by the respondent no.1 for a period of two years in terms of Clause 21(i) of the Contract Agreement and Clause 3.1 & 3.2 of the Request for Qualification dated 01.01.2021 (RFQ) between the petitioner and the respondent;

iii. on the basis of the above, the performance securities / bank guarantees with respect to the contract agreements for operating each of the aforesaid fee plazas, deposited by the petitioner in terms of Clause 2.4 of the RFQ, have been sought to be encashed.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action has been taken on the basis of a show cause notice issued on 25.01.2025 where, apart from a cryptic reference to an investigation by the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (UPSTF) resulting in an FIR No. 0017 filed on 22.01.2025 at P.S. Lalganj, Distt Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, no specific attribution/ lapse against the petitioner has been pointed out.

4. Further, it is submitted that a response to the said show cause notice was submitted vide communication dated 29.01.2025 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner regularly monitors its toll booths in accordance with Clause 21 of the contract agreement/s between the parties and that the show cause notice issued by the respondent fails to provide any specific allegations as regards the fraudulent activity alleged to be carried out at the aforesaid fee plazas.

5. It is submitted that the impugned letter/s fail to even notice much less deal with the submissions made by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice.

6. Further, it is brought to the attention of this Court that whereas the show cause notice sought to debar the petitioner only for a period of one year, the impugned letter purports to terminate the contract and also debar the petitioner for a period of two years.

7. It is further submitted that the show cause notice made no reference to any termination action by the respondent.

8. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned communications have been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no hearing whatsoever was afforded to the petitioner. This is not refuted by learned counsel for the respondent.

9. The respondent seeks to justify the impugned order on the basis of the statement made by one Mr. Alok Kumar Singh to the UPSTF. The same is, however, vehemently denied by learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

10. Respective counsel for the parties have been heard at some length.

11. It is noticed that communications / letters issued by the NHAI which are similar to the impugned communication/s in the present case and were issued in an identical factual marix, have been set aside by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 in W.P.(C) 3513/2025 and W.P.(C) 3515/2025.

12. In the circumstances and considering the aforementioned discrepancies in the impugned communication/s, and particularly considering that no opportunity for personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to issuance thereof, the same is clearly unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the imp