JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mrs. M. Kechii, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of Mizoram.

2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Notification dated 28.07.2020, issued by the Chief Engineer, Highways, PWD, Mizoram, by which the petitioner had been debarred from participating in any future tenders under Chief Engineer, Highways, PWD, Mizoram, for fraudulent practices, for a period of three (3) years w.e.f. the date of issue of the notification, by allegedly invoking Appendix VI Article 3(2) of the Integrity Pact Format (IPF). The basic ground of challenge to the above Notification dated 28.07.2020 is that while Section 4 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) deals with Fraud and Corrupt practices, Clause 4.2 of the said Section 4 provides the maximum period of debarment for 2 years only, for fraudulent practices.

3. The petitioner’s counsel thus submits that as the petitioner had been illegally debarred for 3 years for resorting to fraudulent practices, the impugned Notification dated 28.07.2022 should be set aside, as it loses its validity after two years, i.e. on 28.07.2022, in terms of Clause 4.2 of Section 4 of the RPF. She submits that Appendix VI Article 3(2) could not be invoked/applied by the respondent No. 4.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned Notification dated 28.07.2022 was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. However, the petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 19.08.2020.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the reason the petitioner has now approached this Court is that the petitioner had participated in the tender process issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (N.H. Works), Assam vide NIT dated 05.09.2022. However, the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on 29.12.2022, by the Assam State Level Evaluation Committee by observing that the petitioner had been debarred from participating in the tender process under the respondent No. 4 for a period of three years w.e.f. 28.07.2020.

6. The petitioners’ counsel submits that Section 4.2 of the RFP provides the maximum period of debarment of the Contractor for fraudulent practice for a period of 2 years only. However, by illegality applying Appendix VI Article 3 and Article 2, the respondent No. 4 has barred the petitioners for participate in the tender process for three years.

7. The further contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that Appendix VI Article 3(2) of the IPF can only be applied, if there has been a violation of Article 2. As Appendix-VI Article 2 is limited to preventing corruption and is not relatable to fraudulent practices, Appendix VI Article 3(2), by which debarment can be made for three years cannot be applied for the petitioners’ case.

8. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that there has been no infirmity with the debarment of the petitioners from participating in the tender process for three years in terms of Appendix VI Article 3(2). He further submits that as the petitioners had given false information which would amount to an attempt to cheat, the same was covered by the provision of Appendix VI Article 2(c), as the same was in violation of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the exercise of Article 3 was not in proper or illegal.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

10. The question to be decided is as to whether punishment/penalty can be imposed upon Contractor for fraudulent practices under Article 3(2) of the Appendix VI of the IPF or under Clause 4.2 of the RPF.

11. Clause 4.2 of the RFP states as follows:

“4.2. Without prejudice to the rights of the Authority under Clause 4.1 hereinabove and the rights and remedies which the Authority may have under the LOA or the Agreement, or otherwise if a Bidder or Contractor, as the case may be, is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or t