Delhi High Court
Libas Investments Private ... vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 25 October, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.10.2017
+ W.P.(C) 11736/2016 & CM Nos.46180/2016, 7913/2017,
14809/2017 & 20476/2017
LIBAS INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta with Mr.
Harpreet Singh & Mr. Pranjal Saran, Advs.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing
Counsel, North DMC with Ms. Vasundhara
Nayyar and Ms. Anushruti, Advs. for North
DMC.
Mr. Nimish Chib, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner challenges the rejection of its bid, for
allotment of parking sites, by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation
(NDMC). The petitioners were not allowed to participate in the e-
auction on account of denial of access by the respondent - NDMC.
W.P.(C) No.11736/2016 Page 1
2. The NDMC was of the opinion that the petitioner's bid could
not be considered on account of a bar contained in the eligibility
condition 1(c).
3. In this regard, the relevant condition is extracted below:
"1. Eligibility for participation in the tender:
a. *****
b. ******
c. Any person/ party/ firm or registered
parking contractor who is disqualified or ineligible
to participate in the tender according to the
aforesaid conditions shall not be qualified to offer
the tender in the name of its associate concern
subsidiaries/ principals/ front/ related concerns in
which he has substantial financial stakes/shows
common addresses/ common partners or
Directors/ frequent financial transaction of huge
amounts and the commissioner/ authorized officer
on his behalf may declare the tenderer disqualified
on this ground, if he is of the opinion that the said
tenderer is acting in collusion with for the benefit
of any other party who would have been
disqualified to participate in tender of his own.
The decision of the Competent Authority shall be
final and binding on such bidders."
4. The petitioner's bid was rejected and the intimation given in
this regard, was as follows:
W.P.(C) No.11736/2016 Page 2
"Sub.:- Allotment of NDMC parking sites on regular basis
through e-auction
This is to inform you that an e-auction for allotment of
authorized 26 parking sites of North DMC, was held on
01.12.2016. During the scrutiny of mandatory documents
uploaded online by you, the following discrepancies were
observed-
S.No. Name of the Bidder Details of the discrepancies
1. M/s Kake Finvest Pvt. Huge transactions are found related with
Ltd. the company namely M/s Ashima
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which is already
a defaulter, as per "Clause No. 1 (C) of
the Terms and Conditions". Hence, you
were not allowed to participate in the live
e-auction on 01.12.2016.
2. M/s Libas Investment Huge transactions are found related with
Pvt. Ltd. the company namely M/s Ashima
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which is already
a defaulter, as per "Clause No. 1 (C) of
the Terms and Conditions". Hence, you
were not allowed to participate in the live
e-auction on 01.12.2016.
3. Sh. Raj Mani Tiwari Found un-fit due to not uploading the
requisite documents on MCD-website
portal. Accordingly, you have not
allowed to participate in the live e-auction
on 01.12.2016.
This issues with the prior approval of the Competent
Authority."
W.P.(C) No.11736/2016 Page 3
5. It is contended that the inference drawn with respect to
petitioner's connection with M/s Ashima Infrastructure and the
disqualification condition are untenable. Learned counsel contends
that there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner concern is
related to M/s Ashima Infrastructure or that it has substantial financial
stakes or common address or common partners or directors. Elaborate
submissions were made in this regard by the parties.
6. During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the award of
contract was for the period of one year from 02.12.2016, when the
allotments were intimated. Out of the six sites advertised, four have
already become operational; in respect of the fifth site - of which the
second respondent - Sunil Kumar was the successful tenderer, the
Court had interdicted the allotment by an interim order and upon
being apprised of the fact that the order was not complied with, stayed
handing over of the site.
7. The Court had expressed the opinion that having regard to the
facts and circumstances - especially that four sites have been
operational and that tenure of the sites is likely to end within the next
60 days, it would be more appropriate to re-tender all the sites,
depending upon the expiration of the existing tenure of the allotment
in the other four sites. This course was acceptable to the NDMC.
8. In the light of the above, the following directions are issued:
W.P.(C) No.11736/2016 Page 4
(i) NDMC shall within three days from today indicate to the
petitioner the reasons for its decision to not permit it to
participate in the e-auction (i.e. spell out the grounds for
its conclusions that clause 1(c) applies).
(ii) The petitioner shall file its representation to such notice
within four days of its receipt. If requested, a hearing
shall be granted by NDMC after which the Corporation
shall proceed to pass a brief speaking order.
(iii) The entire process shall be completed within two weeks.
(iv) Concurrently with the above, the auction of all the six
sites shall be advertised; the tenure of the two sites,
which are the subject matter of the present proceedings
can be from the beginning of December or such earlier
convenient date as may be deemed appropriate.
(v) For the other four sites, of course, the allotment would be
for a tenure after the expiry of the existing tenure.
(vi) The rights and contentions of all parties with respect to
the fresh auction to be conducted are kept open.
(vii) The earnest money furnished by the petitioner and the
second respondent shall be refunded to them within two
weeks from today. Furthermore, the amounts paid
towards instalments, etc. in terms of the allotment (which
W.P.(C) No.11736/2016 Page 5
could not be utilized or operationalized) shall also be
refunded to the second respondent over and above the
said amount.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 25, 2017
kks
W.P.(C) No.11736/2016 Page 6
