SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 842

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

Blacklisting a consultancy firm without providing an opportunity for a hearing violates natural justice principles and renders the action impermissible.

Headnote:(A) Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2024 - Principles of Natural Justice - Blacklisting - The petitioner was disqualified from participating in government tenders for 5 years without a prior hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. (Paras 18, 19, 21)

(B) Government e-Marketplace (GeM) Policy - Suspension of accounts - Notification and remedy options not adhered to.

(C) Misinterpretation of financial terms - The court found that the financial proposal terms were confusing and warranted interpretation in favor of the petitioner. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an Office Memorandum that imposed a 5-year disqualification and account suspension related to a tender process due to alleged negligence. The issues arose after the petitioner’s financial proposal was misinterpreted regarding annual costs.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner amounted to a grave misunderstanding of the tender terms and was executed without due process, thereby violating natural justice principles.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner’s financial proposal was properly understood, and if the disqualification was procedurally correct.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that blacklisting without a hearing is improper and stressed that such actions could not be taken without affording the affected party a chance to defend itself.

Result: The Office Memorandum and related communications were set aside.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top