M/S. Chauhan Associates vs Union Of India & Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 448 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the ban imposed on it for tendering for carrying on the contracts with the Union of India. Petitioner's case is that the respondents, without issuing a show cause notice, have desisted the petitioner from the list of approved contractors with the C.W.E., Air Force, Palam, Delhi.

3. Petitioner claims that the respondents, as a result of this ban, are neither issuing any tenders nor accepting the bids for tenders already issued to the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that tender documents, bearing No. CWE(U)D-19/98-99 was refused to be accepted by the respondents on 23.3.99. Similarly, tenders bearing Nos. CWE(U)D-31/98-99 and GE/AC/D-30/98-99 were refused to be accepted.

4. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is claimed that action was taken against the petitioner after issuing a show cause notice, to which no reply was given by the petitioner.

5. Respondents claim that the petitioner, who had submitted a tender for the work of, Provision of special repairs to Fire Hydrants and cleaning of existing pipe line and augmentation of water supply at COD Delhi Cantt, illegally withdrew the same vide his letter bearing No.CA/11/90 dated 20.3.1999. This action of the petitioner put the respondents to great loss and inconvenience, as the petitioner was the lowest bidder. The C.W.E., Air Force, Palam, Delhi, the Registering Authority of the petitioner, was advised to take disciplinary action against the petitioner firm and it was further recommended that they should be banned for issue of tender for at least 6 months. The Registering Authority i.e. C.W.E., Air Force, Palam also sent a show cause notice dated 10.8.1999 to the petitioner. No reply to the said show cause notice was received. It was stated by the respondents that it was a serious technical offence and, therefore, respondents decided to impose a ban on the issue of tender to the petitioner firm till further orders. Pursuant to this, the bids of the petitioner for tenders, which were already issued, were not accepted. Fresh tenders were not issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that subsequently respondents decided that the period of ban be increased from 6 months to one year. The submission of the petitioner that the ban was imposed without any show cause notice is devoid of merit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that the period of ban for a period of 6 months from March, 1999 had expired in September, 1999. Even if the increased one year period was to be reckoned, it had to be counted from March, 1999, the one year period has also expired. There is merit in the contention of the petitioner as it could not have been the intention of the Authorities that if passing of formal order imposing the ban was delayed, the period of ban would commence from the date of formal order.

In this view of the matter, the period of ban of one year having expired, the petitioner would be entitled to issue of tenders unless there was any other ground for denying its issuance to the petitioner.

7. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.