IMPORTANT POINT
Litigants must approach the court with full disclosure and clean hands; failure to do so results in dismissal of their petitions.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. A certiorari is prayed for quashing the order dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner has been debarred by the respondents from future bidding. The petitioner further prays that it be allowed to continue with the work allotted vide letter dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure P-1), as no separate termination of contract has been issued and no complaint had ever been submitted by anyone against the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks initiation of an inquiry by the Vigilance for the complaints made by the petitioner as well as by the empanelled Architect against the respondents. The release of payment qua the work done by the petitioner is also prayed for.

2. The petitioner claims to be a well established firm engaged in providing services as contractors and also claims to have executed various works assigned by the State Bank of India at different locations in India.

3. Facts, as pleaded, are that tenders were floated by the respondents for electrical work of State Bank of India-Administrative Office, Ludhiana for a total cost of Rs.13,51,000/- plus GST. In pursuance of a bid having been submitted by the petitioner, the same was accepted and the petitioner was engaged vide letter dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure P-1).

4. The petitioner immediately commenced the work and completed almost 70/80 per cent of the same to the complete satisfaction of the respondents and not a single complaint was conveyed to the petitioner for the work done at the site at Ludhiana. However, despite the same, the payments due to the petitioner were not released. The petitioner suddenly received a communication dated 24.11.2023 vide which the contract of Bathinda Zone was terminated without assigning any valid reason and without providing any opportunity of hearing. Not only this, vide order dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was debarred for future bidding as well.

5. It has been averred in this petition that these steps were taken at the behest of one Malkhan Singh, AGM (P&E), SBI, LHO, Chandigarh against whom the petitioner had submitted complaint dated 08.11.2023 for demand of illegal gratification (Annexure P-3).

6. On 01.01.2024, the petitioner received an e-mail from the Local Head Office, Chandigarh for stoppage of ongoing contracts (Annexure P-4). The petitioner, therefore, issued a legal notice dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure P-5). Instead of replying to the same, a legal notice dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) was issued by the respondents to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had not completed the work in time and, therefore, he had been debarred for a period of two years. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said legal notice on 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), mentioning the entire facts.

7. The case of the petitioner is that the order of termination and that of debarment were issued without following the principles of natural justice and no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner, forcing him to knock the doors of this Court.

8. During the course of preliminary hearing, at the outset, learned counsel representing the respondents, who was present on advance notice having been served, submitted that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and that he has suppressed vital facts from the Court with a view to mislead the Court. It was submitted that a civil suit had been filed by the petitioner, challenging the debarment order dated 04.12.2023 and the termination order dated 24.11.2023 and in the said suit, application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction had also been dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh.

Learned counsel also produced a copy of the plaint along with application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, as also the order dated 06.03.2024, vide which the application for grant of ad interim injunction was dismissed. The same were taken on rec