W.P(C) 7512/2019 1 of 15

$~16

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 20.12.2021

+

W.P.(C) 7512/2019 & CM APPL. 31299/2019

M/S LORD KRISHNA ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES..... Petitioner

versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

..... Respondent

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Amit Mahajan and Mr. Dhruv Pande, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Akshay Chandra, Add. Standing Counsel for NDMC.

CORAM:-

JUDGMENT

1.

Petitioner impugns order dated 09.07.2019 whereby the

petitioner firm has been debarred from further tendering in NDMC for

a period of three years with immediate effect.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

had furnished certain documents to show fulfilment of the eligibility

criterion, however, later it transpired that erroneously petitioner had

furnished the documents which did not show him eligible and after the

bid submission date a further document was submitted which showed

2021:DHC:4285

W.P(C) 7512/2019 2 of 15

the bid of petitioner as compliant, however, as the document was

submitted late, petitioner’s bid was rejected.

3.

Learned counsel submits that a show cause notice was issued

on 05.04.2019 which was duly replied to. He further submits that error

was committed by the officers of the petitioner in submitting

documents which did not show petitioner eligible, however, none of

the documents were forged or fabricated which could have entailed

the punishment of debarment. He submits that when this was pointed

out instead of withdrawing the show cause notice petitioner has been

debarred for a period of three years.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a

vigilance enquiry was conducted into the documents submitted and

the enquiry report showed that the documents were false and

accordingly the action of debarment has been taken.

5.

Further it is contended that petitioner has the remedy of

approaching the Independent External Monitors and as such the

petition is not maintainable.

6.

Respondents had issued an E-procurement tender notice. The

eligibility criterion for qualification in the said tender was that the

tenderer should have successfully executed three similar supply

orders, each of value not less than 40% of the estimated cost put to

2021:DHC:4285

W.P(C) 7512/2019 3 of 15

tender or two similar supply orders of value not less than 60% of the

estimated cost or one similar supply order of value not less than 80%

of the estimated cost put to tender, during the-last seven years and

should submit scanned copies in support of their claim, through e-

tendering system.

7.

Petitioner had submitted copies of three supply orders along

with the bid document. However, the three orders had not been

successfully executed. It is the case of the petitioner that when this

error was noticed one more supply order was provided which was

more than 80% of the estimated cost of the tender which would have

shown the petitioner as duly qualified.

8.

Petitioner does not impugn the rejection of the bid but is only

aggrieved by the debarment of the petitioner for a period of three

years.

9.

The show cause notice dated 05.04.2019 enlists the grounds for

proposed action as under:-

2021:DHC:4285

W.P(C) 7512/2019 4 of 15

2021:DHC:4285

W.P(C) 7512/2019 5 of 15

10.

In response to the said show cause notice petitioner replied as

under:-

(A)

(B)