Partly allowed

Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (I.a. Division) & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/1396/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The High Court suspended an order debarring the petitioner from appointment in eIA studies for one year for violating draft TORs. The court noted the respondent failed to issue a show cause notice or dispose of opposing representations in time and directed a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order stayed, representation consideration directed, and order website disclaimer removal ordered.

Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of… — Environment and Pollution | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1396/2016 & C.M.Nos.6128-6129/2016

¶4

MANTEC CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr.Subhash C.Jindal with Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE (I.A. DIVISION) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr.Sarfaraz Ahmad, Advocate for R- 1.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶10

O R D E R % 02.03.2016

¶11

Present petition has been filed challenging the respondent No.1's order dated 9^th February, 2016, whereby the petitioner was debarred from carrying out preparation of any Environment Impact Assessment/Environment Management Plan report and appearing before Expert Appraisal Committee/State Expert Appraisal Committee/ State Coastal Management Authorities across the country for a period of one year on the ground that the report prepared by the petitioner was for clearance of thirteen projects, whereas the terms of reference (TOR) issued to respondent No.1 was only for three projects. The abovementioned act of the petitioner, according to the respondent No.1 led to wastage of considerable time and resources at various levels.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondent no.2 invited the tender for appointment of Advisor for preparation of Integrated Environment Impact Assessment Study Report for all future proposals of Kandla Port Trust at Kandla and not only for the three projects for which TOR had been granted to the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1. He also states that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

¶13

A perusal of the file reveals that the petitioner’s representations dated 10^th February, 2016 and 12^th February, 2016 have not been disposed of by the respondent no.1.

¶14

This Court is also of the view that since the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice and without specifying in advance that the petitioner could be debarred, the respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the aforesaid representations as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶15

Till then, the impugned order dated 9^th February, 2016 shall not be given effect to. And if it has been placed on the website of the respondent no.1, the same shall be removed.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition and the applications are disposed of.

¶17

Order dasti .

¶18

MANMOHAN, J

¶19

MARCH 02, 2016 KA

Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (I.a. Division) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (I.a. Division) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Subhash Chander Sehgal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Prakash Chand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogander Singh and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.

Saurav Kumar and Ors. Vs Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

Narendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shribhagwan Sharma and Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs Vinai Kumar Srivastav & Anr.

Ankit Kumar Vs the University of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Buhariwala Logistics Vs the Commissioner of Customs (General)

Ramjas Primary School & Anr. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Himanshu Mittal Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Avtar Lal Gill Vs the Lt. Governor & Ors.

M/S Priority Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.