JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari, and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Respondent Authority;

b) Award costs of the Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner- Company;

c) Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the dispute pertains to the construction of housing project known as “Signature View Apartments” (hereinafter “the apartment”) at Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi.

3. The aforesaid project comprises 336 multi-storied residential flats whereby, the petitioner was awarded construction of Group 1 (150 flats) and Group 2 (96) flats pursuant to agreement executed under tender noted by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter “DDA”) in the year 2007. The construction of the apartment commenced in the year 2007 and was completed in the year 2010. Thereafter, the project was handed over for occupation.

4. Around the year 2012 onwards, the structures started exhibiting signs of distress including cracks in structural elements, falling plasters, corrosion and reinforcement of steel and deterioration of concrete etc.

5. Subsequently, the DDA referred the matter to expert agencies for a detailed technical assessment. The National Council for Cement and Building Materials (hereinafter “NCCBM”) conducted inspections and recorded structural deficiencies including cracking, deterioration of concrete and corrosion-related issues and gave its report in the year 2019 while recommending further comprehensive evaluation. Pursuant to the same, a detailed structural audit was carried out by Indian Institute of Technology (hereinafter “IIT”) Delhi through Prof. Shashank Bishnoi. Mr. Bishnoi submitted the reports on 17.06.2022 and 19.11.2022.

6. The said reports identified extensive structural distress including deterioration of reinforced concrete, corrosion and reinforcement of steel material deficiencies and concluded that the buildings were structurally compromised beyond economical repair with continued occupation causing serious risk, thereby, necessitating demolition and reconstruction. The buildings were declared dangerous by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “MCD”). The action of the MCD was affirmed by this Court in case titled as *Vishwajeet Singh & Ors. v. Subhashish Panda*, (W.P.(C) 14960/2023 judgment dated 23.12.2024) and the action of the demolition was justified. The said judgment was affirmed in LPA, (LPA 533/2025 order dated 17.09.2025).

7. It appears that the criminal investigation was initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter “CBI”). The FIRs have been lodged against the contractor as well as government officials. The DDA has also initiated action against the petitioner and issued a Show Cause Notice on 29.05.2024. The DDA, after considering the petitioner's response vide the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 debarred the petitioner from participating in future tenders. It is this order which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

8. Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has raised the following broad submissions: (i) Non-supply of the document, which was essential to the defense of the petitioner. (ii) The personal hearing was not granted. (iii) The impugned order is not a speaking one. (iv) There cannot be an indefinite debarment.

9. He, thus, contends that the cumulative effect of all those grounds turns into violation of the principle of natural justice. He thus, while placing reliance on decision in the case of Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam & Ors, ((2014) 14 SCC 731), *M/s. Deccan Mechanical and Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. NTPC Ltd. and Anr*, ((2014) SCC OnLine Del 195), *S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India*, ((1990) 4 SCC 594),