Point of Law: . It is trite to note that the decision of authority is based on the terms of tender wherein it has been kept open for the authority to debar the petitioner for the period of two years or more. It is discretion of the Managing Director if there is lapse in adherence to the condition of the tender.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following relief:

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2018, received under email dated 21.04.2018, addressed by respondent No.1 to the petitioner, marked as Annexure-A to this petition;

(b) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 1.04.2018 to the extent that it puts the petitioner in the ‘Stop Deal List’;

(c) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.34,09,625/illegally deducted by respondent No.1 with interest;

(d) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant exparte adinterim relief in terms of paragraph 21(b) and 21(c);

(e) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to award cost the present petition to the petitioner.

(f) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.4.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 - Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited by which the petitioner has been put in the ‘Stop Deal List’ for the period of three years and further an amount of Rs.34,09,625/is directed to be recovered from the retention money maintained by the petitioner in connection to the tender and work order in question with respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts as stated in the petition are as under:

3.1 The petitioner is a proprietorship concern established in 2004 involved in delivering high quality solar pump, solar agriculture pump, solar deep submersible pump, solar surface pumps, solar fountain pumps, solar garden pumps, solar pump for home etc. The petitioner has completed several projects with respondent No.2 ( for sake of brevity referred as “PGVCL”in short).

3.2 PGVCL floated a tender for “Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Off-Grid Solar Water pumping system with comprehensive maintenance at various locations of all DISCOMs under GUVNL” in the year 2017.

3.3 The petitioner participated in the said tender by submitting the bid on 29.5.2017 online as well as in the physical mode. The petitioner has further stated that the tender was floated by the respondent No.2 and had undertaken the work only for respondent No.2 - PGVCL. The petitioner bid for the same was under the impression that the work was to be carried out for respondent No.2. On 29.5.2017 the respondent No.2 in reference to the tender and the bid submitted by the petitioner requested the petitioner to confirm the same within three days whether they were willing to supply 100 nos. of 5 HP (5000 WP) Solar Water Pumping System with Motor Pump Set at L1 price i.e. Rs.3,25,000/each.

3.4 The petitioner accepted the said offer on 1.6.2017 thereby giving acceptance to match the price with L1 bidder.

3.5 The Letter of Acceptance (LoA) value was Rs.3,40,96,250/and accordingly security of Rs.34,09,625/was to be deposited by the petitioner with respondent No.1 within 15 days.

3.6 The Clause (7) of the LoA specifically states that, ‘contract agreement was to be executed between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner.

3.7 It is asserted by the petitioner that the petitioner was under the impression that the work was to be carried out for PGVCL as all the communications including the tender was floated by PGVCL. However, on 14.6.2017 when the LoA was addressed to the petitioner by the PGVCL, the petitioner was disinterested to carry out the allotted work.

3.8 The petitioner addressed various emails. The petitioner showed disinterest in carrying out the work under the LoA.

3.9 The petitioner has further stated that