Point of Law: Tender Process - Maintainability of Writ - It is settled legal position that if an authority acts in an arbitrary matter even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach Court by way of Writ under Article of Constitution and that Court, depending on facts of said case, is empowered to grant relief. When an action of an authority is arbitrary or discriminatory and thus, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India a Writ Petition maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in his favour:

“(a) Quashing of the communication dated 21.1.2019 issued vide No. 23(04)-5/2018/19 /1752 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-1) in terms whereof the petitioner has been debarred from tendering or taking part in CPWD, MOEF PWD Govt of Delhi etc. for a period of three years with effect from date of the communication/order;

(b) Declaring the communication aforesaid as being illegal, inoperative, null and void on account of being in violation of the settled legal principles; and

(c) Any other writ, order or direction which this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances attendant to the case be passed in favour of the petitioner so as to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Sans details, the background facts leading to the filing of the Petition on hand, as stated by the Petitioner in his Petition, are that the Petitioner claims to be an “A” Class Contractor registered under the Contractors Registration Act, besides being second generation Civil Contractor associated with the execution of various construction projects involving the Respondent-Central Public Works Department (for short ‘CPWD’) for the last four decades. It is stated that the average turnover of the Petitioner insofar as it pertains to the execution of works of the CPWD ranges from Rs.10 to 15 Crores per annum. It is pleaded that certain disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent Department in relation to various contract matters which were referred to Arbitrators, either appointed by the Respondent Department itself or upon seeking intervention of the Court in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Petitioner has further proceeded to state that on account of pendency of multiple arbitration matters between the parties, the Respondent Department, in order to inflict punishment upon the Petitioner, tried to find out ways and means to stop the Petitioner from participating in the tendering process initiated by the Respondent Department for execution of various contracts, one such instance being issuance of notice dated 23rd of October, 2018 bearing No 23(04)/2018/BSF/1251, asking the Petitioner to show case as to why he should not be debarred from taking up any work in CPWD, MOEF, PWD (Government of Delhi), etc., all over India. This show cause notice is stated to have been issued in reference to: i) construction of Airbase, including provision for Cabin/Helicopter Hanger at BSF Campus, Humhama, Srinagar, Kashmir alleging that the flooring work of Helicopter Hanger was found sub-standard on account of poor workmanship; ii) construction of Trainers Training Hostel/ Farmers Hostel Block at CITH, Rangreth, Kashmir with the allegation that the subject building was not taken over by the concerned Department on account of non-rectification of the defects; and iii) submission of false documents at the time of tendering qua mismatch in date of renewal shown by two Executive Engineers of the State department. This show cause notice, as stated, was replied by the Petitioner vide communication dated 9th of November, 2018, whereby all the points/issues raised by the Respondent Department were clarified/ answered by the Petitioner in detail. Notwithstanding the reply submitted by the Petitioner to the show cause notice dated 23rd of October, 2018 and without taking into consideration the contents thereof, the Respondent No.1 has proceeded to issue the impugned communication dated 21st of January, 2019, thereby debarring the Petitioner from tendering or taking up work in CPWD, MOEF, PWD (Government of Delhi), etcetera, all over India for a period of three years with effect from the date of issuance of communication impugned. It is this communication that has been assailed by the Petitioner through the medium of the instant Petition.

3. Mr Manzoor Ahmad Dar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned comm