Delhi High Court
M/S B.R. Arora & Associates (P) ... vs Airports Authority Of India on 22 December, 2016
$~20
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2016
+ W.P.(C) 11714/2016
M/S B.R. ARORA & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. & ORS..... Petitioners
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Mr. Vaibhav Dang
and Mr. B.R. Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Digivjay Rai, Advocate with Mr.V.R. Aray,
JGM (Law)
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
22.12.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.46119/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11714/2016 & CM No.46118/2016 (stay)
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 17.06.2016, communicated
to the petitioner that the petitioner firm has been blacklisted for a
period of 5 years w.e.f 01.07.2013 from participating in any tenders of
Airport Authority of India in future and further informing the
petitioner that henceforth the Airports Authority of India shall not
award any contract to the petitioner or to any firm or company having
business link in the form of Joint Venture or the like with the
petitioner.
2. It is contended that the respondent had invited tender for the
work of expansion of apron, construction of additional taxiway,
extension of runway and allied works at the Varanasi Airport. The
petitioner was awarded the contract.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have completed the work to the
entire satisfaction of the respondent on 20.08.2010. The final bill of
the petitioner was submitted but the same was not accepted and a
meagre amount credited to the petitioner's bank account.
4. It is contended that after the expiry of the defect liability period,
the respondents invoked the petitioner's bank guarantee that was
furnished towards security deposit. When the petitioner approached
this Court, impugning the action of the respondent of encashing the
bank guarantee, a dispute Resolution Board was constituted to decide
the disputes between the parties. This petition does not concern the
dispute raised therein but concerns the action of the respondent in
blacklisting the petitioner.
5. An offshoot of the said dispute was that the respondent
blacklisted the petitioner by order dated 01.07.2013. The petitioner
impugned the said order by filing a writ petition. The writ petition
was disposed of directing the respondents to grant liberty to the
petitioner to reply to the show cause notice and to afford a personal
hearing.
6. Consequent to the directions passed by this Court directing
filing of a response and a personal hearing, the impugned order dated
17.06.2016 has been passed.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Competent
Authority has merely passed a one-line order that it has decided to,
inter alia, blacklist the petitioner for a period of five years with effect
from 01.07.2013. The order does not reveal any thought process,
reasoning, or consideration of the response given by the petitioner.
8. The original departmental file of consideration has been
produced. Perusal of the file shows that a hearing was granted by the
Executive Director (Engineering) on 21.03.2016. The file noting
contains various notes of several officers. The relevant file noting of
the Executive Director (Engineering) shows that he had heard the
petitioner on 21.03.2016 and, thereafter, there is a noting by him that
the petitioner be debarred for a period of five years commencing from
01.07.2013.
9. The file does not contain any deliberation by the Executive
Director (Engineering), who had heard the petitioner, giving reasons
or discussing the points and contentions raised by the petitioner.
10. In my view, since the impugned order is cryptic and no reason
or rationale can be discerned there from which could show that there
is any application of mind to the pleas and objections raised by the
petitioner, the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 17.06.2016 blacklisting the petitioner for a period of five
years w.e.f. 01.07.2013 from participating in any tender of Airports
Authority of India in future and the decision of the respondents that
that henceforth the Airport Authority of India shall not award any
contract to the petitioner or to any firm or company having business
link in the form of joint venture or the like with the petitioner, is set
aside.
11. It is clarified that the setting aside of order dated 17.06.2016
would not preclude the respondents from considering the reply
furnished by the petitioner and disposing of the show cause notice by
way of a speaking order. Till the respondents pass a fresh speaking
order, the consequences of setting aside of order dated 17.06.2016
shall enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
12. It is further clarified that this Court has not examined the
contentions of the petitioner that the Executive Director (Engineering)
is not a competent authority and could not have passed the impugned
order. This issue is left open.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
14. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
DECEMBER 22, 2016/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
