Remanded

Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC16 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1054/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court in writ petitions challenges to a blacklisting order by the DDA's Contractor's Registration Board granted relief by directing the Board to provide a personal hearing, allowing petitioners to file replies, keeping the order in abeyance, and ensuring notifications and website uploads.

What did the court decide?

Contrator's Registration Board to afford a fair hearing; impugned order kept in abeyance; DDA to send and upload order copies.

Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:16.10.2024 15:47 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

+	W.P.(C) 1072/	2016& CMNo	.4691/2016& 4692/2016
8	M/S DISCOVE	RY ESTATES	PVT LTD Petitioner
	DDA	Through: versus Through:	Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv. Respondent Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Kartik Jindal, Adv. for DDA.
+	W.P.(C) 1089	/2016& CMNo	.4736/2016& 4737/2016
9	M/S MGF DE	VELOPMENTS	LTD Petitioner
		Through: versus	Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv.
	DDA		Respondent
		Through:	Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Kartik Jindal, Adv. for DDA.
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE M	R. JUSTICE J.	R. MIDHA

¶3

ORDER % 16.02.2016

¶4

CM No.3920/2016 in W.P.(C) 895/2016 CM No.4319/2016 in W.P.(C) 991/2016 CM No.4587/2016 in W.P.(C) 1054/2016 CM No.4692/2016 in W.P.(C) 1072/2016 CM No.4737/2016 in W.P.(C) 1089/2016 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C)895/2016 & CM No.3919/2016 W.P.(C)991/2016 & CM No.4318/2016 W.P.(C)1054/2016 & CM No.4586/2016 W.P.(C)1072/2016 & CMNo.4691/2016 W.P.(CU089/2016 & CM No.4736/2016

¶5

Issue notice.Learnedcounselfor respondentsacceptsnotice.

¶6

¶7

The petitionershave challengedthe order dated 14^^ October, 2015 passed by the Contractor's Registration Board, Delhi Development Authority whereby the petitioners have been black listed for participation in any public, private, partnership projects of the Government of India for a period of three years. The main ground of challenge in all these petitions is that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 14^*^ October, 2015. Reliance is placed on M/s Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL, in which the Supreme Court has held that the authority passing the black listing order is required to give a fair hearing before passing the order. 3. Mr. Ajay Verma, learned senior standing counsel for DDA submits on instructions from Mr. Nahar Singh, Superintending Engineer and Secretary of the Board present in Court with the relevant record that no hearing was afforded to the petitioners because it was not sought for. Mr. Ajay Verma, learned senior standing counsel for DDA further submits that Board shall give opportunity of personal hearing and till then, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance.

¶8

Learned counsels for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 991/2016, 1054/2016, 1072/2016 & 1089/2016 submit that they could not file the reply as the showcause notice was not properly served on them. Learned counsels seek time to file a reply to the showcause notice.

¶9

Learned senior counsel for the petitionerin W.P.(C) 895/2016 seeks permissionto file an additionalreplyto the showcausenotice.

¶10

In the facts and circumstancesof the case. Contractor'sRegistration Board, Delhi Development Authority shall afford a fair and reasonable opportunity for hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 991/2016, 1054/2016, 1072/2016 & 1089/2016 are permittedto file their replyto the showcausenoticedated28^'' August,2015 whereasthe petitioner

¶11

in W.P.(C) 895/2016 is permitted to file additional reply within a period of two weeks from today. Contractor's Registration Board, Delhi Development Authority shall intimate the date of personal hearing to the petitioners as well as their counsels. Contractor's Registration Board, Delhi Development Authority shall consider the submissions of the petitioners to pass a fresh order and till then, the order dated 14'*^ October, 2015 shall remain in abeyance.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the copy of order dated 14^^ October, 2015 has been sent to various authoritiesmentionedin page 3and 4ofthe order. Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityshall send the copy of this order to the concerned authorities to whom the order dated 14^^ October, 2015 had been sent.

¶14

Learned counsels for the petitionerssubmit that the order dated 14^^ October, 2015 has been loaded on the website of Delhi Development Authority and, therefore, the copy of this order be also uploaded there. If the order dated 14^^ October, 2015 has been loaded on the website, Delhi Development Authority shall upload this order also on the website. 9. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of these cases which shall be considered by the Contractor's Registration Board, Delhi Development Authority after hearing both the parties.

¶15

The petitions as well as the stay applicationsare disposed of 11. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.

¶16

LR. MIDHA, J.

¶17

FEBRUARY 16, 2016 ak

Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpanjali Farm Owners and Residents Welfare Association, Bijwasan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) & Ors.

Moti Kumari Vs Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

Abhishek Prakash Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi, India & Anr.

Mustajab Ali Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Pan Parag India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)Delhi & Anr.

Kothari Product Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs Export Inland Container Depot Tuglakabad New Delhi & Anr.

Npt Papers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Accountant Girish Bagdi Vs Prinicipal Commiissioner of Customs Icd (Import) Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Mahipal Dabas & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Laiq Ahmad Hashmi Vs Bses & Anr.

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. Vs Leelawati Devi

Baby Akshara Langayan and Ors. Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited and Ors.

M/S. Emaar Properties Pjsc Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

M/S Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Pravin Chatterjee Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.