JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, which claims to be a regular contractor carrying out business activities with the respondent as well as other Government Departments, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the alleged order dated

04.10.2019 and the circular dated 14.10.2019 passed by the respondent.

2. It has been averred that the petitioner was awarded Work Order No. 49 dated 03.05.2018 for ‘improvement of E&M equipments by painting installed at Bharat Nagar, SPS’, which was to be completed within 30 days. The petitioner completed the work enunciated in the Order to the satisfaction of the respondent and submitted its bill(s) alongwith all material procurement vouchers to the Executive Engineer-in-Charge on 31.05.2018. The bill(s) was approved for payment, however, instead of processing the payment, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.04.2019 was issued after more than a year with respect to the Work Order, directing the petitioner to explain as to why it be not blacklisted/removed/temporary suspended from the list of approved/registered contractors, on the ground that the Vigilance Department of DJB, after inspecting/checking the work under the Order, had found that no such work was carried out. The petitioner, vide its letter dated 10.04.2019, sought time to produce related documents and eventually filed a Reply on 27.04.2019.

3. Vide Reply dated 27.04.2019, the petitioner stated that the work was measured by the J.E./A.E. and the final bill with details of actual quantity processed, whereafter the final bill came to be passed by the Ex. Engineer being Engineer-In-Charge. It was further asserted that neither during the time when the work under the Order was carried out nor during the guarantee period which continued for a period of six months, any notice/letter was served on the petitioner.

In pursuance of an E-mail dated 07.08.2019, Mr. Pankaj Mittal (proprietor of the petitioner) appeared before the Chief Engineer (SDW) NW at Keshopur on 08.08.2019 when it was informed to him that the competent authority had confirmed the factum of purchase of material by the petitioner from Navyug Sales Corporation. Subsequent thereto, a Circular dated 14.10.2019 was received by the petitioner whereby it was communicated for the first time that the competent authority had approved the petitioner’s debarment for a period of five years.

4. It has been contended that although the said Circular dated 14.10.2019 refers to an order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Competent Authority, no such order was ever communicated to the petitioner. Lastly, it has been contended that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner by the Competent Authority/Department Committee.

5. Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/DJB, while supporting the impugned Order/Circular, has contended that the action against the petitioner has been taken in pursuance of a communication received from the Vigilance Department of the answering respondent, which has observed that no work was carried out in pursuance of the Work Order and the collusion of DJB Officers’ with the petitioner is established. It is submitted that the matter was placed before the CEO of the answering respondent, who had ordered to take action for blacklisting/removal/temporary suspension of the petitioner’s firm. Learned Standing Counsel averred that in these circumstances, the Show Cause Notice dated 02.04.2019 was issued to the petitioner. In support of her case, she also referred to the Note-File and termed it as a debarment order.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the entire case record.

7. The petitioner has made a specific averment that it had not received any debarment order dated 04.10.2019 and had rather received the Circular dated 14.10.2019 wherein only a mention of the debarment order was made. 8. A perusal of the record would reveal th