Delhi High Court
Woodhill Infrastructure Ltd. vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr. on 6 February, 2018
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 6 February 2018
+ W.P. ( C) 1085/2018
WOODHILL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Sadiqua Fatima and
Mr. Akash Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR. .... Respondents
Through : Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. Satya Prakash Singh
and Mr. Surender Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. Mr. Bhardwaj, CGSC submits that he does not wish to file a
counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents and that he would want
to argue the matter based on the record as presently available.
3. This is a second round of litigation. First round of litigation
ended with the order dated 31.8.2017, passed by this court in
WP(C)No.6964/2017. In that round, the writ petitioner challenged the
order dated 3.7.2017, whereby, the petitioner was debarred from
participating in any tender or Request for Proposal (in short 'RFP')
issued by respondent no.1 for a period of two years with effect from
28.03.2017.
4. This court set aside the order dated 3.7.2017 on the limited
ground that no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner.
The Court however, clarified that the respondents would not be
precluded from taking any action in accordance with law after issuing
a show cause notice to the petitioner.
4.1 Consequently, on 1.11.2017, a show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner. As required, the petitioner filed a reply to the show
cause notice. Reply filed by the petitioner is dated 7.11.2017.
4.2 Pursuant to the reply, respondent no.1 has passed the impugned
order dated 14.12.2017.
5. Ms. Sadiqua Fatima, learned counsel for the petitioner says that
the impugned order is flawed for the reason that the show cause notice
proceeds on a basis different from that which is reflected in the
impugned order.
5.1 Learned counsel has elaborated upon this submission by
drawing my attention to the show cause notice which alleged that the
petitioner had written 'NIL' in the subject bid tendered in Serial
No.5(d) of Appendix 1A. The learned counsel went on to say the
impugned order, however, found fault with the fact that the petitioner
had not furnished information against Serial No. 6 in Annexure I
6. The only argument thus advanced is that the petitioner was not
put to notice that it had to answer as to why information as sought for
against Serial No.6 in Annexure I of Appendix 1(a) was not provided.
7. I have perused the show cause notice. The show cause notice
has several recitals included in it. A close perusal of the show cause
notice would that while there is a reference to the fact that the
petitioner had apparently written NIL against information sought for
in Serial no. 5 (d) Annexure I, of appendix 1A, there is a separate
recital which adverts to the termination of a contract that the petitioner
executed with another entity.
The description of the contract which was terminated and the source
of information was also disclosed by way of a separate recital. For the
sake of convenience the same is extracted here after.
" Tamenglong-Khongsang Road (NH-137) in the state of
Manipur, MORT&H sought facts from NHIDCL vide letter
no.-NH-12014/90/2016-UR/Chardham/NH-II dated
13.04.2017. NHIDCL vide letter No.-NH-
12014/02/2014/MN/NH-8/NHIDCL - (Vol.-II)/117 dated -
26.04.2017 infomred MORT&H about the facts.
8. It is not in dispute that against Serial No.6 of Annexure I of
Appendix 1A, the petitioner had not furnished the information that its
contract qua the aforementioned works had been terminated.
8.1 The termination of the contract occurred on 9.5.2016. The bid
in respect of the contract in issue was, concededly, filed by the
petitioner on 27.3.2017. Therefore, clearly the petitioner was required
to furnish the requisite information against Serial No.6, Annexure I of
Appendix 1A.
8.2 Insofar as the information which was sought against Serial
No.5(d) in Annexure 1 of Appendix 1A was concerned, the petitioner
had, in fact, stated ' NA' and not ' Nil'. However, so far as this
information was concerned, the petitioner has taken the stand, which
in my view is correct that since the debarment order came to be passed
after the subject bid was tendered there was no way the said
information could be furnished at the time of filing the bid. To be
noted the debarment order was passed on 2.8.2017, while the subject
bid was tendered, as noted above, on 27.3.2017. Having said so, this
defence clearly does not apply to the information sought against Serial
No.6, Annexure 1, of Appendix 1A.
8.3 The record shows that the debarment order dated 2.8.2017 was
pivoted on a fraudulent bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner.
8.4 Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner
that the impugned order was not premised on what was put to the
petitioner in the show cause notice dated 1.11.2017 according to me is
an argument which is completely untenable. A fair and holistic
reading of the show cause notice would show that the petitioner was in
fact put to notice that it had not furnished the requisite information
against Serial No.6, Annexure 1 of Appendix 1A.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. The debarment order in my view appears to be in
order.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The pending
application being CM No.4529/2018 shall consequently stand
disposed of.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that by
virtue of the impugned order dated 14.12.2017, the respondents have
in fact reiterated the order dated 3.7.2017 which was set aside by this
court vide a order dated 31.08.2017.
12. A careful reading of the operative part of the impugned order
would show that this is not so. All that the order states is that the facts
stated in its earlier communication dated 3.7.2017 was justified and
grounded in events which according to respondent no. 1 were correct.
13. No costs
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2018
mk
