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

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Ltd., Ranchi through one of its Directors, Sri Ravindra Bharti – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 3343 of 2022
Decided on : 23-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shray Mishra, Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned administrative decisions, adherence to principles of natural justice, and the prohibition of being a judge in one's own cause.

Headnote:

debarment - Construction Works - Jharkhand Water Resources Contractor Registration Rules, 2018 - Clause 11.1.4 - The court discussed the application of Clause 11.1.4 of the Jharkhand Water Resources Contractor Registration Rules, 2018, and the pending arbitration proceedings to determine the responsibility for the delay in completion of the construction works. The court highlighted the principles of natural justice and the need for reasoned decisions in administrative actions, ultimately quashing the order of debarment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was debarred from participating in future tenders for a period of two years and ten months due to alleged delay in completion of construction works. The petitioner argued that the delay was beyond its control and pending arbitration proceedings should determine responsibility for the delay. The respondents alleged misappropriation and non-completion of works as grounds for debarment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order of debarment was arbitrary and unreasonable, as it was passed without considering the petitioner's explanation and during the pendency of arbitration proceedings. The court also noted that the respondents' additional grounds for debarment were not mentioned in the show cause notice or the impugned order, rendering them invalid.

Issues: The key issues included the validity of the debarment order, the pending arbitration proceedings to determine responsibility for the delay, and the alleged misappropriation by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of natural justice, the need for reasoned administrative decisions, and the importance of not being a judge in one's own cause. It held that the order of debarment was arbitrary and violated these principles, ultimately quashing the order.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order of debarment was quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 2532 dated 05.05.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participating in future tenders for a period of two years and ten months.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was awarded residual work of construction relating to three reservoirs schemes i.e., Bhairwa Reservoir Scheme at Gola in Hazaribagh district vide Agreement No. 01F2/2005-06 dated 02.07.2005, Ramrekha Reservoir Scheme at Dobhaye in Simdega district vide Agreement No. 06F2/2005-06 dated 12.12.2005 and Keso Reservoir Scheme at Jainagar in Koderma district vide Agreement No. 15F2/2006-07 dated 23.03.2007 on ‘Turn Key Basis’. A show cause notice dated 19.05.2017 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Secretary (Eng.), Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand alleging that all the aforesaid three works were to be completed in 30 months from their respective date of commencement, however, even after lapse of 10 years, the said work could not be completed as yet and thereby asking the petitioner to explain the reason within one month as to why it may not be debarred from participating in other forthcoming tenders of Water Resources Department for the alleged negligence committed by it in proper execution of the said works. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice on 16.06.2017 reiterating the reasons for delay in completion of the said projects such as, non-completion of the process of timely acquisition of land, non-payment of compensation to the landowners, public protest for committing delay in rehabilitation of the displaced persons as well as development of the place of rehabilitation due to shortage of fund and stoppage of work owing to regular violence by the anti-social elements. However, the respondent no. 3 passed an order as contained in letter no. 402 dated 23.08.2017 debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders/contracts to be floated by the Water Resources Department till further order. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5230 of 2017 challenging the order dated 23.08.2017 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2018, whereby the said order of debarment was quashed and set aside holding that the debarment can never be permanent, rather the term of debarment depends upon the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the erring contractor. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 5911 dated 23.10.2019, cancelled the order of debarment of the petitioner with immediate effect. However, a show cause notice was again issued to the petitioner by the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand on 14.11.2019 asking it to reply within one month as to why the work with respect to agreements dated 02.07.2005, 12.12.2005 and 23.03.2007 executed for Bhairwa Reservoir Scheme, Ramrekha Reservoir Scheme and Keso Reservoir Scheme respectively were not completed and why the petitioner should not be debarred from participating in future tenders/contracts for a period of five years for committing negligence in performing the aforesaid three works. The petitioner replied the said show cause notice on 14.12.2019 primarily stating that the issue raised in the show cause notice dated 14.11.2019 is sub-judice before the Arbitrator appointed by this Court. However, the respondent no. 4 vide impugned order as contained in memo no. 2532 dated 05.05.2022 debarred the petitioner from participating in future tenders/contracts for a period of two years and ten months in purported exercise of power conferred under Clause 11.1.4 of Jharkhand Water Resources Contractor Registration R

          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