M/S Cdm Smith India Private Ltd. vs National Highways & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 993 Del

$~68

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment delivered on: 20.02.2017
+       W.P.(C) 1422/2017

        M/S CDM SMITH INDIA PRIVATE LTD.                     ..... Petitioner
                           versus
        NATIONAL HIGHWAYS & INFRASTRUCTURE
        DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner   :     Mr. C.D. Mulherkar and Ms. Anushka Arora, Advocates.

For the Respondent   :     Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Ms. Devna Arora
                           and Mr. Kabir Bose, Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                      JUDGMENT

20.02.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

CM No.6539/2017 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 1422/2017 & CM No.6538/2017(interim relief)

1. The petitioner impugns letter dated 09.11.2016, whereby, inter alia,

the petitioner has been debarred from participating in future projects of the

National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited with

immediate effect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the impugned

letter, no show-cause was issued to the petitioner, putting the petitioner to

notice that petitioner is likely to be debarred from participating in any of the

projects.

3. It is submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the

petitioner and further the petitioner has been debarred for an unspecified

period.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as issue of

suspension or termination of contract is concerned, he is not impugning the

same in this petition. It is contended that petitioner had already terminated

the Contract prior to the issuance of the impugned letter, so, there is no

question of respondent suspending or terminating the Contract. However, he

submits that this petition is restricted to the issue of debarment. He submits

that insofar as the suspension or termination of contract is concerned, the

petitioner would be taking such remedies, as may be available in law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order dated

09.11.2016 was passed in terms of Clause 7.4.2 of the General Conditions of

Contract (GCC). He however submits that since the petitioner is raising a

technical objection with regard to the issue of debarment of the petitioner, to

the effect that, it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, to

overcome the technical objection raised by the petitioner, a show-cause

notice would be issued to the petitioner and thereafter, an opportunity of

hearing would be granted and an appropriate order in accordance with law

would be passed.

6. In view of the stand of the respondent, the order dated 09.11.2016,

insofar as it relates to the debarment of the petitioner, is set aside.

7. It is clarified that the respondent would be at liberty to issue a show-

cause notice to the petitioner with regard the proposed action of debarment.

If such a show-cause notice is issued, the petitioner would also be afforded

an opportunity of personal hearing.

8. It is clarified that the setting aside of the order dated 09.11.2016 is

restricted solely to the debarment of the petitioner and this order does not, in

any manner, comment upon the action taken by the respondent of suspension

and termination of the contract, which is left open to be considered by the

appropriate forum, if any, proceedings are initiated in respect thereof.

9. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

10. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 20, 2017 'sn'