Delhi High Court
Bedi And Bedi Associates vs National Bal Bhawan on 8 May, 2017
$~46
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.05.2017
+ W.P.(C) 3820/2017 & CM No.16817/2017 (stay)
BEDI AND BEDI ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari with Ms. Vishakha,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
08.05.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by the present petition, impugns letter dated
28.04.2017, whereby, the respondent has terminated the contract for
cleaning and housekeeping services awarded to the petitioner and has
forfeited the performance security in addition to blacklisting and
debarring the petitioner from future tenders in the respondent
institution.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no
show cause notice was given to the petitioner prior to termination of
the contract and blacklisting the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the
issue of termination is concerned, the petitioner would like to avail of
all his remedies in law and would not like to press the present petition.
4. Insofar as the blacklisting is concerned, he submits that since
the blacklisting and debarment order was issued without issuance of
any show cause notice, the order of blacklisting and debarment is
vitiated.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance
notice, submits that insofar as the issue of blacklisting is concerned, if
the petitioner represents against it, the respondent would reconsider
the same.
6. He further submits that another agency has already been
deployed with effect from 01.05.2017. He produces a letter dated
07.05.2017, which is taken on record.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn, insofar as the prayer of termination and forfeiture of
performance security is concerned, reserving liberty of the petitioner
to avail of all such remedies as may be available in law.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.04.2017,
insofar as it relates to blacklisting and debarment of the petitioner is
concerned, is set aside. The respondent is directed to issue a show
cause notice to the petitioner within a period of one week. The
petitioner shall be granted one week time to respond to the show cause
notice. The petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of
personal hearing. The respondent would thereafter decide on the
show cause notice on the issue of blacklisting and debarment within a
period of two weeks.
9. Needless to state that, in case the petitioner is further aggrieved
by any further orders of the respondent, the petitioner would be
entitled to avail of such remedies as may be available in law.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
11. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 08, 2017
st
