IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
A.K. SIKRI, RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JJ.
Mahavir Transmission Udyog Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Transmission Corporation Ltd. and others – Respondents
CWP No. 341 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided on: 20.03.2013
Natural Justice - Debarment from Tenders - The court set aside the order debarring the petitioner from participating in tenders for a period of five years, citing violation of principles of natural justice due to improper opportunity given to the petitioner before passing the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of orders debarring them from future participation in tenders for five years, citing violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notice was sent to the petitioner at an incorrect address, depriving them of a proper opportunity to respond. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks, after which the respondent was to pass speaking orders and provide a personal hearing to the petitioner if desired.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, improper opportunity given to the petitioner before passing the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the show cause notice was sent to the petitioner at an incorrect address, depriving them of a proper opportunity to respond, and set aside the impugned order.
Final Decision: The impugned order debarring the petitioner from participating in tenders for five years was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks, after which the respondent was to pass speaking orders and provide a personal hearing to the petitioner if desired.
A.K. SIKRI, J.
C.M. Nos. 4730-31 of 2013
Allowed.
Replication is taken on record.
Disposed of.
CWP No. 341 of 2013
Facts of the matter need not be traversed in detail. Suffice is to point out that the present petition is preferred by the petitioner questioning the validity of orders dated 25.09.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2, namely, Chief Engineer of Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited, debarring the petitioner from any future participation in tenders for a period of five years. Prime contention, nay, sole contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid orders had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as there was no proper opportunity granted to the petitioner to show cause against such a move on the part of the respondents.
2. As per the records, show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 was issued by the respondents to the petitioner giving him opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in some other contract. However, submission of the petitioner is that this show cause notice was never received by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not give any reply thereto.
3. While issuing notice of motion, we had also directed the respondents to produce the original record in which orders dated 25.09.2012 had been passed. That record is produced and we have perused the same. The arguments are also heard with reference to that record.
4. Perusal of the record shows that show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 was sent to the petitioner at its work's place which is an address in Dehradun. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the tender which was submitted by the petitioner with the respondents correspondence address of New Delhi office was mentioned i.e. 7/33, Ansari Road, Daria Ganj, New Delhi. In that, even fax numbers where the communication by fax could be sent were also given. Two fax numbers of the telephone lines in New Delhi which were given are 011-23279424 and 23279463. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the copy of the dispatch register of the respondents which is annexed as Annexure P-16 with the replication and it shows that the respondents had sent the final orders dated 25.09.2012 blacklisting the petitioner at New Delhi address. From this dispatch register, it is also shown by learned counsel for the petitioner that whenever any letter was sent by fax, the same is duly indicated in the dispatch register. Furthermore, after sending the letters by fax, the respondents were getting the receipt of the same confirmed as well and that is also indicated in the dispatch register. While that has happened qua other correspondences exchanged between the parties, in so far as show cause notice is concerned, no such procedure is adopted. It is also pointed out that as per normal practice, whenever such show cause notice is issued, copy thereof is sent to other departments. However, even this was not done when purported show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 was sent to the petitioner.
5. By the impugned orders dated 25.09.2012, the petitioner is debarred from participating in any tenders for a period of five years. This order amounts to blacklisting of the petitioner and it has very serious civil and criminal consequences, inasmuch as the effect of the said order would be that not only the petitioner is debarred from submitting any tender with the respondents herein, but on that ground, the petitioner would be prevented from submitting its tender in any other government departments as well. In a matter like this, we are of the opinion that it becomes imperative that there should be an adequate opportunity given to the petitioner before passing such an order. No doubt, the respondents had sent the show cause notice dated 29.07.2011, but it was sent at Dehradun address, whereas the administrative office/corporate office of the petitioner is in New Delhi and it is the New Delhi address which was specificall
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.