2025:DHC-1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA, J.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 10154 of 2024, C.M. APPL. Nos. 41726, 41727, 63396 of 2024
Decided On : 24-02-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Sanjay Jain, Piyush Joshi, Sumiti Yadava, Meghna Sengupta, Harshita Sukheja, A.D. Rama Ratna Sarma, Palak Jain
For the Respondents : Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, Sarvan Kumar, R. Venkat Prabhat, Daksh Pandit, Kamna Behrani, Ansh Kalra, Shweta Bharti, Sonali Kumar, Sukriti Verma, Vanshika Gupta
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN DATTA, J.
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present petition filed by the petitioner seeks to assail an Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned OM’) which inter alia disqualified the petitioner for a period of 5 years from participating in any Request for Proposals (RFA) issued by the Integrated Nutrient Management Division (Organic Farm Divisions) (hereinafter referred as ‘INMD’), Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (respondent no.1) and a communication/email dated 22.07.2024, in terms of which, account of the petitioner on the Government e-Market Place (GeM) portal (respondent no.2) was suspended for 30 days i.e., between 22.07.2024 to 21.08.2024.
2. The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of a Request for Proposal (RFA) dated 04.01.2024 issued by the INMD of respondent no.1 on the portal of respondent no. 2 for selection of a consultancy firm for establishment of Programme Monitoring Unit (hereinafter referred as “PMU”) for the Mission Organic Value Chain Development for North Eastern Region (hereinafter referred as “MOVCDNER”).
3. It is stated that the petitioner in response to the aforesaid RFP, on 17.02.2024, submitted technical proposal on the GeM Portal. However, since there was no option to upload the Annexure II (Financial Proposal Format) separately on the said portal, pursuant to a telephonic guidance, the same was submitted in hard copy on 19.02.2024. It is stated that the financial proposal clearly mentioned annual price for the services as Rs.3,46,92,000/-
4. Thereafter, the petitioner sent an email/communication dated 20.03.2024 to the respondent no.1, confirming the submission of the annual total fees (in rupees, including GST) as well as informing that the applicable fee for the entire period of 3 years will be three times the quoted amount. The said communication reads as under:-
“To
The Director (Organic) INM Division,
DA&FW Government of India Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
Subject: Regarding the financial proposal for Selection of Consultancy Firm for Establishment of Programme Monitoring Unit (PMU) for Mission Organic Value Chain Development for North-eastern Region (MOVCDNER) under Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) Division, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India (dated 04.01.2024)
Dear Sir,
I, the undersigned, confirm that we have submitted the Annual Total fees (in Rs. including GST) as the financial quotation through online portal and in hard copy as per the template provided in the RfP. And for the entire period of three years the applicable fees will be three times the quoted amount.
This is for your kind consideration please.
Regards
Shashi”
5. Pursuant thereto, on 18.04.2024, the petitioner received an email/ communication from respondent no.2, intimating that the petitioner has been selected as a service provider in a contract generated on the GeM portal bearing no. GEMC-511687740337905. In terms of the generated contract, the service was stipulated to commence on 01.05.2024 and conclude on 01.05.2027.
6. In the aforesaid contract however, the total cost for the project (lump sum) for the entire three years was stipulated to be Rs.3,46,92,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the contract generated by the GeM portal constituted only the annual cost as referred to in the financial proposal submitted in the format provided in Annexure-II of the RFP and does not reflect the total cost as submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner vide an email/communication dated 24.04.2024, highlighted inter alia the aforesaid grievance to the respondent no.1. The relevant communication dated 24.04.2024 reads as under:
“Date: 24rd April 2024
Director (Organic), INM Division
Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi, Delhi-110001, India
Subject: Regarding the RfP for Consultancy Firm for Establishment
Blacklisting a consultancy firm without providing an opportunity for a hearing violates natural justice principles and renders the action impermissible.
The court upheld the debarment of the petitioner for failing to submit a performance guarantee on time, affirming the procedural fairness and adherence to the RFP guidelines.
Principles of natural justice and proportionality must be upheld in administrative decisions such as blacklisting, ensuring that adequate opportunity is provided to contractors to defend against adve....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that before blacklisting a person/entity, adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard must be provided, in accordance with the principles of nat....
Blacklisting without notice constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, requiring fair opportunity for the affected party to present their case.
The necessity of a specific show cause notice for blacklisting and the requirement to state the proposed action.
Judicial non-interference in tenders upheld absent mala fides or arbitrariness; non-disclosure of challenged blacklisting justifies disqualification if no timely rollback proof provided.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.