IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the requirement of a valid, particularized and unambiguous Show-Cause Notice for blacklisting and the discretion of the High Court to entertain a writ petition.

1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior assisted by Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned debarment notice dated 23.01.2023 issued by the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL), by which the petitioners have been debarred for two years from participating in any future projects of the NHIDCL/MoRTH, either directly or indirectly in accordance with paragraph 3 (3) (a) & (e) of the MoRTH Circular dated 07.10.2021.

3. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are consultants/authority engineers, providing consultancy services for the contract work pertaining to “Four laning of Jhanjhi to Demow section from km 491.050 to km 535.250 and Demow to Bogibeel junction near Lapetkata section from kim 535.250 to km 581.700 of NH-37 in the State of Assam under SARDP-NE on Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) mode” which was trifurcated into 3 (three) contracts.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the debarment notice has been issued in pursuance to the contract i.e. “End of Moran Bye-pass (km 562.525) to Bogibeel junction (km 581.700)”. The petitioners challenge to the debarment/blacklisting order is basically on the ground that no notice had been issued to the petitioners, prior to the impugned debarment notice being issued. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (1975) 1 SCC 70, Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 and UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551.

5. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that Show-Cause Notice was issued to the petitioners, prior to the impugned debarment/blacklisting order being issued. He further submits that as there was an admission on the part of the petitioners, with regard to the fact that excess payment had been made to the contractor for works that had not been executed, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the petitioners, even if no notice was issued to the petitioners, prior to the issuance of the Debarment Notice. He further submits that the blacklisting of the petitioners can be put to challenge by way of a review, in terms of the MoRTH Circular dated 07.10.2021 and as such, the petitioners should avail the efficacious alternative remedy available. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, 2015 AIR SCW 3884, M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2583 and Aligarh Muslim University and Others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783.

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

7. To a specific query put to the counsel for the respondents as to whether the excess amount paid to the contractor has been adjusted/reconciled, Mr. P.J. Saikia submits that most of the excess amount has been adjusted/reconciled. However, the excess amount has not been fully adjusted/reconciled, inasmuch as, the contract with M/s Monoranjan Brahma has subsequently been terminated by the NHIDCL and final adjustment of payable dues etc., if any, would have to be made after measurement of the works is done.

8. The brief facts of the case is that pursuant to the tender notice in respect of the contract work “End of Moran Bye-pass (km 562.525) to Bogibeel junction (km 581.700)” the contract for construction of the road was awarded to one M/s Atlanta Limited, vide Agreement dated 11.02.2016. The said contract was however terminated in the year 2018 and a fresh tender notice was issued.