Madras High Court
M/S.Global Infra Solutions vs / on 22 May, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
2025:MHC:1204
W.P.No.11098 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 22.04.2025
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 22.05.2025
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.11098 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.12523 & 12524 of 2025
1. M/s.Global Infra Solutions,
F-2, E-8/11A, Sukhsagar Apartment,
Trilanga, Bhopal – 462 039.
Madhya Pradesh,
Though its sole Proprietor,
Mr.Sandeep Singh
2. Dhruv Consultancy Services Limited,
501, Pulkit Plaza, C.B.D.Belapur,
Navi Mumbai – 400 614,
Through its Authorized Representative,
Mr.Sandeep Singh.
3. M/s.MS Consultant,
E-8/11A, Sukhsagar Apartment,
Trilanga, Bhopal – 462 039.
Madhya Pradesh,
Though its Partner,
Mr.Sandeep Singh
.. Petitioner
/versus/
1. Union of India,
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
W.P.No.11098 of 2025
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
Transport Bhawan,
1, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. National Highway Authority of India,
O/o. Regional Officer,
Chennai Region,
5 Floor, CMRL Building,
th
Poonamallee High Road,
Koyembedu, Chennai – 600 107.
Also at:
Corporate Office,
G-5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075.
3. National Highway Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit- Krishnagiri,
259/1, Salem Main Road,
Near KAKC Petrol Bunk,
Krishnagiri - 635 001.
Tamil Nadu. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for
the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second
respondent pertaining to impugned order in NHAI/11021/16/PIU-K'
giri/2023/834/33/(243693) dated 11.03.2025 debarring the petitioner from
participating in future bids for a period of 2 years and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Rajive R.Raj
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
W.P.No.11098 of 2025
for Mr.A.R.Ramanathan
For R1 : Ms.P.J.Anitha
Central Government Standing Counsel
For R2 & R3 : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan
Additional Deputy Solicitor General
assisted by Ms.S.R.Sumathy
ORDER
A. The Writ Petition:
This writ petition challenges the impugned order in
NHAI/11021/16/PIU-K' giri/2023/834/33/(243693) dated 11.03.2025,
which debarred the petitioners as consultants for a period of two years
and prohibited them from participating in future bids during this period,
effective from 11.03.2025. The debarment was made without prejudice to
any other actions that may be taken against the petitioners.
B. The Case of the Petitioners:
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are a consortium of three
entities, all premier consulting engineering companies operating in India,
providing Civil Engineering Consultancy to the Government, its agencies,
and the private sector. Meanwhile, the second respondent invited bids for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
Independent Engineering Services related to its work on “Four laning of
Neraluru (Karnataka) -Thorapalli Agraharam (Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri
District) section of NH – 844 from Km. 0.000 to 23.350 (Design
Chainage) under Bharatmala Pariyojna Phase -I (National Corridor) on
Hybrid Annuity Mode in the State of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
(Package -I)”. According to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the
petitioners participated and were judged as the highest-scoring bidder
(H1), subsequently awarded the contract through a letter of award dated
15.12.2022. Following this, the consultancy agreement was executed on
11.01.2023. While the petitioners were fulfilling their obligations under
the contract, a show cause notice dated 15.05.2024 was issued. This
notice included seven allegations, and the petitioners were requested to
provide an explanation. The petitioners submitted their explanation on
29.05.2024, detailing their responses to each allegation. Nevertheless, the
impugned order dated 11.03.2025 was issued, resulting in a two-year
debarment of the petitioners. Additionally, the petitioners' contract was
terminated, against which separate proceedings have been initiated.
3. Regarding the debarment, the petitioners argue that the action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
was taken outside the scope of the contract agreement executed by the
parties. Appendix N permits debarment only concerning specific actions,
which are absent in this case. Moreover, when certain violations
occurred by the concessionaire, they were acknowledged on the spot by
the key professionals/team leader, who were solely sponsored by the
second respondent. For the mistakes made by these professionals, actions
are now being initiated against the petitioners. In fact, no action has been
taken concerning any violations against the key professionals, the
concessionaire, or the Project Director, who was present at the site while
the work was being conducted. The action against the petitioners appears
to be an attempt to make them scapegoats for the entire incident.
C. The case of the Respondents:
4. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents. The counter-
affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. It is their case that after
the execution of the contract agreement on 11.01.2023, the consultant's
team leader also joined on 16.01.2023. When the concessionaire
submitted the design and drawings on 24.01.2023, the petitioners
approved the construction of box culverts on 21.02.2023 without taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
the site conditions into account. No site observations were issued by the
petitioners, and no instructions were provided to the concessionaire to
stop construction. According to the agreement, Clause 4.4(c) requires
prior approval from the authority in the event of the absence of any key
professionals. The Resident Engineer cum Highway Engineer was absent
from the site during February and March 2024. The team leader was
absent from the site for more than 10 days in March 2024.
5. A show cause notice was issued in this regard. Despite repeated
directions and reminders, several shortcomings on the part of the
petitioners persisted. In light of these defaults, the Project Director,
Krishnagiri, through communication dated 16.03.2024, recommended to
the Regional Office, Chennai, that actions be initiated against the
consultants. A detailed show cause notice was issued, and several
allegations related to serial numbers 3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) in
Appendix N were presented. The explanation offered by the petitioners
was considered but deemed unacceptable. Consequently, the penalty of
debarment for a period of two years was imposed. The grounds raised in
the writ petition lack merit; thus, the writ petition is subject to dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
D. The Arguments:
6. Heard Mr.Rajive R.Raj, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Firstly, he submits that no adequate and informed
opportunity was granted to the petitioners. The show cause notice was
generally given and was vague. It did not specify what deficiencies, as
listed in clauses 3(a) to 3(e) in Appendix N, were present in the instant
case. Therefore, the petitioners were unable to respond effectively.
Furthermore, as per Clause 3 of Appendix N, the punishment of
debarment can only be imposed if the discrepancies or lapses impact
more than 1% of the construction cost, which is Rs. 484.74 crore, or if the
time implication exceeds 5%. No such quantum of cost or time
implication is indicated in the show-cause notice. Therefore, the show
cause notice was issued.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Gorkha Security
Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, reported in 2014
(9) SCC 105, specifically pointing to paragraphs 19 and 20, and submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
that since the show cause notice itself is vague, the impugned order of
punishment, namely debarment, must be set aside by this Court. The
learned counsel would contend that the show cause notice was issued for
an alleged violation of Clause 3.1.1 of the General Conditions of Contract
(GCC) and Clauses 4.1, 4.4, and 5.3 of the Terms of Reference (TOR) of
the consultancy agreement. However, the punishment of debarment is to
be imposed only for violations of Clause 3.2 of the GCC and Clause 13 of
the TOR. Therefore, when these allegations were not specifically
mentioned in the show cause notice, the entire exercise is illegal. When
the petitioners was compelled to provide an explanation concerning other
clauses, the debarment order was suddenly issued. Therefore, the
authority cannot be allowed to change the goalposts while passing the
order. Reference is made to paragraph 23 of the judgment of the
Honourable Allahabad High Court in A.K Construction Company versus
Union of India and others (Writ -C No. - 20223 of 2024).
8. Next, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the debarment order will have a cascading effect on the petitioners,
as they will not be able to participate in any future bids. The petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
employ more than 2,000 people, and the livelihoods of 1,500 families are
affected. Upon perusal of the allegations, it is evident that the punishment
of debarment is grossly disproportionate to the alleged deficiencies and
discrepancies. First of all, it appears that the alleged deficiencies and
discrepancies are rectifiable and were, in fact, rectified even before the
debarment order was issued. In this view of the matter, and in light of the
pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Kulja
Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom
Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, reported in 2014
(14) SCC 731, specifically paragraphs 25 and 26, the impugned order is
liable to be quashed.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would then
submit that absolutely no action was taken against the team leader,
Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), or the
concessionaire. The learned Counsel submits that it is evident that the
team leader had to be selected from the INFRACON portal, which is
maintained by the second respondent. The petitioners were required to
choose the Team Leader solely from this panel. This individual approved
the design on the spot without consulting the other professionals in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
petitioners' consultancy. Similarly, the Project Director was present at the
site and signed the same. When lapses and deficiencies were
subsequently discovered, it became evident that the primary mistake lay
solely with the Team Leader and the Project Director. The
concessionaire, who violated the terms of reference by making certain
designs and constructions that were deemed incorrect by the second
respondent, has not been held accountable at all. No action was taken
against the Team Leader, Project Director, or the concessionaire;
therefore, the impugned order of debarment is illegal, as it scapegoats
only the petitioners for the mistakes of the other authorities.
10. Furthermore, the petitioners contend that debarment or
blacklisting should not be imposed for ordinary breaches of contract or
for every violation. Debarment is akin to capital punishment and amounts
to the civil death of a company, commercially ostracising it and leading
to serious consequences. The pronouncements in paragraphs 26 and 27 of
the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Blue Dreamz Advertising
Private Limited and another versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation
and others reported in (2024) 8 S.C.R 189 and Erusian Equipment and
Chemicals Limited vs. State of West Bengal and another, 1975 (1) SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
70, are relied upon.
11. The learned counsel would submit that, overall, there was no
potential harm to the public interest. In such cases, especially when the
construction had not been terminated, the rectifications were made, and
the project was completed, the order of debarment ought not to have been
passed.
12. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, the Learned Additional Deputy Solicitor
General of India, appearing for the second and third respondents, would
draw the attention of this Court to the show cause notice dated
15.05.2024, which was issued by the second respondent. In the said show
cause notice, in paragraph 2, seven specific allegations were made.
While the show cause notice mentions explicitly that the violations of
stipulations are noted under clauses 3.1.1 of the GCC and clauses 4.1, 4.4,
and 5.3 of the TOR of the consultancy agreement, it also categorically
mentions to show cause as to why action should not be initiated for
debarment for a period of two years, apart from declaring the firm as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
non-performer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the show cause notice is
vague or that the impugned order travelled on any allegations beyond the
scope of the show cause notice. In respect of these seven allegations, the
petitioners have submitted a categorical reply.
13. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, would then draw this Court's attention
to Appendix N of the contract, which categorically mentions the types of
deficiencies, the penal actions against key personnel, and the nature of
actions to be taken. Under Appendix N, regarding any allegations falling
within clauses 3(a) to 3(e), the key personnel and team leader are liable to
be removed from the project and debarred for up to two years. It is also
stated that, in the case of firms, in addition to rectifying deficiencies and
taking adequate measures to prevent their recurrence, the consultant may
be debarred for up to two years. Adverting to the nature of the
allegations, he would submit that they clearly fall within clauses 3(a) to
3(e). Therefore, it is within the scope of the respondents' powers to have
initiated the action and debar the petitioner for a period of two years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
14. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India,
this is not a case of permanent debarment. Therefore, the principles laid
down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India regarding the civil death
of a company, as in Blue Dreamz Advertising and Eurasian
Equipment(cited supra), do not apply in this case. He would submit that
the Project Director of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
was never at fault. The Project Director has pointed out the absence of
authorities and the errors that are committed by the concessionaire and
key personnel from time to time. Therefore, action should be initiated
against the petitioners as well as the other persons involved. As far as the
concessionaire is concerned, it is not always advisable to terminate the
concession. In the public interest, the concessionaire was instructed to
rectify the defects and ensure that the constructions were carried out
properly. The entire action was necessitated by the inaction of the
petitioners. Therefore, action is being taken against them. The Team
Leader is also chosen by the petitioners and is deemed to be an employee
of the petitioners, not that of the second respondent. Therefore, the
argument made in that regard is without merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
E. The Questions:
15. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
examined the material record of the case. The following questions are
raised for consideration:-
(a) Is the second respondent justified in initiating debarment
proceedings against the petitioners?
(b) Is the impugned order liable to be quashed on the grounds that
the show cause notice is vague?
(c) Is the impugned order based on any grounds not mentioned in
the show cause notice?
(d) Is the punishment of debarment proportionate and appropriate?
F. Question (a).
16. The copy of the consultancy agreement signed between the
parties on 11.01.2023 is filed, along with the General Conditions of
Contract (GCC) and the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the independent
engineer, including the respective appendices. The roles and functions of
the independent engineer during the design stage, development period,
and construction period are detailed in clauses 3, 4, and 5 of the ToR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
Additionally, the penal actions to be taken against the independent
engineer are outlined in Appendix N. The picture image is reproduced
here for reference:
Appendix N: Penal Actions against independent
Engineer (IE) and Concerned Key Personnel
1.1 Following penal actions shall be taken against
independent Engineer in case of lapses on their part/deficiencies
in services provided under this contract.
Sr.No. Type of Deficiency Penal Actions
Key Personnel Firm
1 (a) Failure to detect For first three instances, key i. For first three
design / quality personnel may be kept on instances, to be
deficiency in Non- "watch list". Thereafter, the kept on watch
key Components* concerned key personnel & list.
Team Leader to be removed ii. Thereafter, a
1(b) Failure to issue
from the project and monetary penalty
follow-up notices to
debarred up to 6 months. of 1% of the
contractor /
consultancy fee
concessionaire for
(the aggregate of
delays in closure of
such penalties in
NCRS, delays in
a contract would
1 (c) furnishing detail of
not exceed the
time & cost claims
performance
/ COS / revised
Guarantee
work programmes /
amount) and /or
work
declaring the
methodologies, etc.
consultant as
Delays or Non-performer
submission of up to 6 months of
improper MPRS, till rectification
improper review of of deficiencies#
methodologies, and taking
temporary works, adequate
QA plan / manual, measures not to
O&M plan / repeat such
Manual etc. instances in
future whichever
is earlier.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
Sr.No. Type of Deficiency Penal Actions
Key Personnel Firm
2 (a) Failure to detect The concerned key Declaring the
design / quality personnel & Team Leader to Consultant as
deficiency in key be removed from the project Non-Performer
component** not and debarred up to 1 year. up to 1 year or
having substantial till rectification
cost (below 1% of of deficiencies#
civil work (cost) and taking
and / or time adequate
implication (below measures not to
5% or project repeat such
completion period) instances in
2 (b) future, whichever
Failure to detect
is earlier.
deficiency in
quantity executed
vis-a-vis design not
having substantial
financial
implication (below
2 (c) 1% civil work cost)
Failure to
conduct/witness
tests as prescribed
in the consultancy
contract agreement
2 (d) Delay in
processing
EOT/COS
proposals,
inaccurate
assessment of COS
proposals, not
issuing NCRs,
delays / improper
review of designs /
drawings / work
programme or
failure to submit
completion /
Provisional
Completion
Certification as
prescribed in
contract.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
Sr.No. Type of Deficiency Penal Actions
Key Personnel Firm
3 (a) Failure to detect The concerned key In addition to
deficiency in personnel & Team Leader to rectification of
quantity executed be removed from the project deficiencies and
vis-a-vis design and debarred up to 2 years. taking adequate
having substantial measures not to
financial repeat such
implication (1% of instances in
civil work cost or future, the
more) consultant to be
3 (b) debarred up to 2
Failure to detect
years.
design / quality
deficiency in key
component having
substantial cost
(1% of civil work
cost or more) and /
or time implication
(5% of project
completion period
3 (c) or more)
Failure to detect
deficiency / not
reviewing design
(including
temporary works)
and construction
(including
methodology) of
structural
components of
flyover / bridges /
underpasses /
overpasses / ROB /
RUB etc.
3(d) Failure to propose
action (like cure
period notice, levy
of damages, etc.)
on contractor /
concessionaire as
per contract
agreement for their
default / poor
progress having
material adverse
effect on the project
implementation in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
Sr.No. Type of Deficiency Penal Actions
Key Personnel Firm
terms of cost (1%
of civil work cost
or more) and / time
(5% of project
completion period
or more).
Improper / wrong
interpretation of
provision in
3(e) contract agreement
or wrong
certification of
payment / COS
value / cost & time
claims; or poor
performance of
services leading to
cost (1% of civil
work cost) and / or
time (5% of project
completion period)
claims against
NHAI awarded by
DRB/CCIE/Arbitra
tion / Court.
17. Upon reviewing the documents, it is evident that if the
allegations fall within clauses 3(a) to 3(e), the second respondent has the
authority to debar the independent engineer/consultant for a period of up
to two years. In this regard, the following allegations were included in the
show cause notice, which are also considered in the impugned order:-
“Issue 1: The Profile submitted by the
concessionaire deviated from the provision of the
Concession Agreement as the design speed was considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
as 80 Kmph instead of 100 Kmph and Limited Gradient was
adopted instead of Ruling Gradient. However, IE
arbitrarily reviewed profile without verifying the scope of
work and without furnishing any comment about the site
conditions that warrants deviations from the Concession
Agreement. Further IE not only failed to ascertain that the
Profile of Main Carriageway is in accordance with the
provisions of the Concession Agreement and Standards &
Specifications, but also issued a letter no.026A dated
13.03.2023 (back dated & without submitting any copy to
the Authority) thereby approving (as claimed by the
concessionaire), the submission of concessionaire vide
letter no.112 dated 16.03.2023 which is contrary to TOR of
Independent Engineer and also contrary to CI.1.18 (a) of
IRC:SP 84-2019, CI.12.2 (c) of CA and CI.4.1 of ToR of IE
services. Further, IE letter dated 13.03.2023 contained
reference to Concessionaire's submission dated 16.03.2023.
Issue 2: Approval of the Drawings of Underpasses
wherein the levels have been lowered w.r.t. adjoining
ground levels and also the levels of the cross roads at Km
1+055, Km 2+881, Km 9+370, Km 9+370, Km 21+048
below OGL. Also construction of LVUP at Km 1+859 has
not been aligned with the crossroads and the profile of
MCW was lowered by the concessionaire as compared to
the provisions of CA.
Issue 3: Approval of drawings of SVUP at Km
5+300 even after knowing about the discrepancy in
highway profile at the said location.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
Issue 4: Lapse in supervision of work: Box culvert
was constructed at Km 6+205 with a residential building
on the downstream end.
Issue 5: Non-availability of Resident cum Highway
Engineer for complete February 2024 and no response
further.
Issue 6: IE certified that the concessionaire
achieved Project Milestone II on 10.01.2024 without
examining the provisions as per clause 3.2 of Schedule G of
the concession agreement.
Issue 7: Failure to review the reports of the safety
consultant.
18. Thus, upon reviewing the same, it is clear that the repeated
allegations fall within the scope of failing to detect deficiencies in the
review of the design and construction of structural components of the
project. It also constitutes a failure to propose action against the
concessionaire, even though the 1% or 5% cost criteria are not
categorically mentioned. However, with respect to the violation of clause
3(c), no such cost slab is required. When the allegations regarding the
construction of box culverts are made, it highlights the inappropriate
location of SVUP and underpasses that are situated without alignment
with crossroads. It can be seen that the allegations levelled would fall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
within various clauses 3(a) to 3(e), more specifically 3(c). Therefore, I
hold that the respondents are justified in initiating action for debarment
against the petitioners.
G. Question (b) & (c):
19. In the show cause notice dated 15.05.2024, paragraph 4 states
as follows:
4. Therefore, for above said deficiencies, a Show
Cause Notice is hereby served to the Independent Engineer
in terms of the Consultancy Agreement, as to why action
should not be initiated against your firm for declaring your
firm as a "non-performer" & Debarment for 02 years period
in terms of IE's Consultancy Agreement, NHAI Policy
Circulars and Applicable Laws. In case, consultant fails to
submit an explanation within 15 days time, it shall be
presumed that it has nothing to submit in this regard and the
Authority is at liberty to initiate aforesaid action without any
further notice to the consultant.
(E m p h a s i s sup pli e d )
20. Thus, it can be seen that when the common show cause notice
was issued regarding the declaration of the petitioner as a non-performer
and debarment, the process for declaring non-performance was detailed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
paragraph 3. It cannot be claimed that the show cause notice is vague.
Specific allegations are made, and an explanation is requested as to why
debarment should not be imposed. Similarly, the impugned order
addresses the seven items mentioned in the show cause notice and does
not take into account any other extraneous reasons or materials when
issuing the order of debarment against the petitioners.
21. On the merits of the allegations, after considering the entire
averments made in the affidavit and the arguments presented, it can be
seen that when the allegation of approving a wrongful design was raised,
the respondents stated that the team leader made the decision on the spot.
When questioned about the incorrect location of the box culverts, it was
again submitted that the consultants were situated elsewhere. However,
upon reviewing the Terms of Reference, it becomes evident that the
consultants were responsible for both the design and construction stages.
They were tasked with reviewing the drawings and documents during
both the development and construction periods. Their roles and functions
are clearly delineated in clauses 3, 4, and 5 of the ToR. Therefore, if one
were to accept the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners, no role
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
can be identified for them. Thus, when the team leader is part of their
team, it is the responsibility of the independent engineering consultants to
have their engineers on site, and they are accountable for any errors in
design, execution, and construction. Consequently, I answer the questions
(b) & (c) that the show cause notice is not vague and the impugned order
does not take into account any grounds which is not mentioned in the
show cause notice.
H. Question (d):
22. In the instant case, it can be seen that the allegations are
levelled regarding the approval of the design stage, the execution stage,
and the construction stage, where the box culverts are located in the
wrong place, and constructions were made. The underpasses were located
in the wrong place, and constructions were made. The entire job of the
independent engineer seems to verify the original plan with reference to
the terms of reference for the concessionaire and ensure that the design is
properly made according to the standards of the second respondent and
that the work is executed strictly in terms of the design. The allegations
refer to lapses at every level. At each level, the petitioners claims that it is
not their responsibility. The same cannot be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
23. Therefore, for such allegations that could lead to the loss of
lives (for example, if underpasses are poorly located, accidents may occur
when they are not situated optimally), this matter cannot be treated
lightly. In any event, in this instance, the debarment does not result in
civil death as it is a suspension, limited to two years. Therefore, it cannot
be characterised as disproportionate, nor can the principles regarding civil
death or permanent closure of the company's business be applied here, as
the punishment is confined to a period of only two years. Consequently,
the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
based on the rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Blu e
D r e a m z Ad v e rti si n g and Eu r a s i a n Eq u i p m e n t & C h e m i c a l s Li m it e d cited
(supra), cannot be upheld.
24. The allegations made relate to every aspect of the project's
execution. Therefore, merely because the concessionaire was given one
more opportunity to rectify all the defects and because no disciplinary
action has been taken against the team leader, the same would not enure
to the benefit of the petitioners who are alleged to have failed in their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
actions at every stage. The receipt of the consultation fee is for
performing these tasks. However, the pleading in respect of every charge
is to disclaim responsibility; if accepted, one can see no role for the
petitioners in the whole execution of the contract, and as such, the
contention cannot be accepted. If allegations that are made are viewed in
the context, it cannot be said that the debarment is either disproportionate
or inappropriate.
I. The Result:
25. Finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
22.05.2025
Neutral citation: Yes
nsl
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
1. The Secretary, Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Regional Officer,
National Highway Authority of India,
Chennai Region, 5 Floor, CMRL Building,
th
Poonamallee High Road,
Koyembedu, Chennai – 600 107.
Also at:
Corporate Office,
G-5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075.
3. National Highway Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit- Krishnagiri,
259/1, Salem Main Road, Near KAKC Petrol Bunk,
Krishnagiri - 635 001, Tamil Nadu.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
nsl
22.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 07:46:20 pm )
