Delhi High Court
Highway Engineering Consultants vs National Highway Authority Of ... on 27 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5489/2015
HIGHWAY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Arvind Nayar and Ms. Nandadevi Deka,
Advocates
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 27.05.2015
CM No.9862/2015 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5489/2015 and CM No.9861/2015 (stay)
2. By this petition, a challenge is laid to order dated 10.12.2014.
By this order, the petitioner has been debarred from participating
directly or indirectly in any work which may be tendered by the
respondent.
3. Ms. Sood, who appears on behalf of the respondent informs me
that the impugned order dated 10.12.2014 is predicted on a report of
the Committee dated 13.11.2014 which comprised of 3 CGMs of the
respondent herein.
W.P.(C) 5489/2015 page 1 of 3
3.1 The peculiarity of the impugned order, is that, while it imposes
an interminable ban on the petitioner, the Committee's report dated
13.11.2014, recommends a ban for a period of 5 years in terms of
clause 2.1.10 (c) of the RFP.
3.2 Obviously, the issuing authority which is one, Mr. R.K. Rathee,
GM(CM-III) has gone way beyond what was recommended by the
Committee.
3.3 That apart, it is the argument of the petitioner that Mr. R.K.
Rathee participated in the deliberations before the Committee which,
in a sense, led to a stiffer punishment being imposed on the petitioner.
3.4 The petitioner, however, does not dispute the fact that one of its
erstwhile partners submitted a fake experience certificate. It is
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was the doing of an
erstwhile partner, and furthermore, the said certificate did not have
much relevance with regard to the matter involving qualification
under the tender in issue.
3.5 I tend to disagree with this submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner. The petitioner cannot have fake experience
certificate being furnished under its watch and then, advance such a
flippant argument.
3.6 Having said so, there is some merit in the petitioner's
contention with regard to the quantum of punishment imposed,
especially, in the circumstances that there is a discrepancy between
what is stated in the Committee's report, and that, which is indicted in
the impugned order.
W.P.(C) 5489/2015 page 2 of 3
4. At this stage, Ms. Sood says that she does not wish to file a
counter affidavit, and that, the submissions which have emerged from
the record be taken into account. I have heard Ms Sood. The learned
counsel says that court should go by the report of the committee qua
the punishment imposed. I am afraid that cannot be done as the
committee's report is only an opinion. The decision is contained in
the impugned order.
5. As noticed above by me, the aforesaid facts are not in dispute.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.12.2014, is set aside. The
respondent, however, will be free to pass a fresh order in the matter.
6. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition
and the pending application are disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 27, 2015
Yg
W.P.(C) 5489/2015 page 3 of 3
