Geotech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1993 Latest Caselaw 467 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been directed against the order dated 26 March 1992 of the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('M.C.D.') for short) whereby the petitioner firm was black listed and debarred from tendering for soil investigation work in the M.C.D. There are three respondents. The second respondent is theCommissioner,M.C.D., and the third is the Executive Engineer-XXVI of the M.C.D. It is respondent No. 3 who had conveyed the impugned order passed by the Engineer-in- Chief of the M.C.D. Since the impugned order did not give any reasons as to why the petitioner was black listed we issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. In answer thereto the respondent-M.C.D. has filed its affidavit sworn by the third respondent.

(2) A tender of the petitioner firm for soil investigation for construction of Community Hall and school building near railway line in Ward No. 50, Dharampura, Shahdara, Delhi, was accepted by the M.C.D. The petitioner, it appears, submitted its report and thereafter the work of construction was entrusted to some other party. That contractor again got the soil inspected and gave his report which was at variance with the report submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, had been paid for the work done by it. On the basis of the report submitted by the contractor for construction of work a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28 October 1991 wherein the petitioner was told that on perusal of its report and that of the building contractor a conclusion was arrived at that the original recommendation on soil report by the petitioner was not realistic and not reflective for the entire plot where proposed building was to be constructed. In these circumstances, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why it be not black listed and debarred from tendering for soil investigation work in M.C.D. "on account of giving unrealistic recommendations on soil report". The show cause notice was given by the third respondent. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply justifying its report. Without examining the reply, by the impugned order the respondent just said that the reply was not satisfactory and decided to black list the petitioner. The petitioner in its rejoinder affidavit has brought on record the three certificates dated 7 April 1992,19 April 1992 and 21 April 1992 issued by different Executive Engineers of the M.C.D. certifying that performance of the petitioner in various other tenders had been good and gave recommendatory certificates to the petitioner.

(3) We find there has not been proper appreciation of the report submitted by the petitioner and in arbitrary manner it has been said that it was not found satisfactory. As noted above, the reply as well as additional reply is a detailed one running into fifteen single space pages giving diagram which has been just brushed aside on a spacious plea that it was not satisfactory. There is no answer to the certificates issued by the other Executive Engineers of various other zones of the M.C.D. itself. We would not like ourselves to go into the question whether the original report of soil testing submitted by the petitioner was right or wrong, but there can be difference of opinion among two experts and on that basis it cannot be said that report which is not accepted would be an act of fraud. We do not find justification for the respondent to black list the petitioner firm. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 26 March 1992 black listing the petitioner and debarring it from tendering for soil investigation work in M.C.D. is set aside. Petitioner will also be entitled to costs which we assess atRs.2,000.00 .