Disposed

Satvat Infosol Private Limited & Anr. v. National Testing Agency

Delhi HC14 Jan 2020W.P.(C)/180/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Delhi set aside NTA order forfeiting deposit and blacklisting Satvat Infosol. Court ruled order set aside solely for lack of hearing, as NTA was reconsidering the matter and petitioner was entitled to explain its stand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside forfeiture and blacklisting was set aside due to lack of hearing; matter remitted for appropriate orders after hearing.

Satvat Infosol Private Limited & Anr. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 180/2020 & CM APPL. 541/2020

¶4

SATVAT INFOSOL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Aditya Chatterjee, Advocate. (M:7337844424)

¶5

versus

¶6

NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Seema Dolo and Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocates. (M:9810072413)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.01.2020

¶11

The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 24^th October, 2019 passed by the Respondent - National Testing Agency (“NTA”). By the said order, the NTA had forfeited the Petitioner’s earnest money deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs, and has also blacklisted and banned the Petitioner from NTA tenders for a period of three years.

¶12

A tender was floated by the NTA on 7^th September, 2019 for selection of Service Providers for mock tests at National Test Centres/ Test Practise Centres. The Petitioner was one of the bidders in the said tender. The Petitioner had given a self-declaration on 27^th September, 2019 stating that it had not been blacklisted by any Government Department or PSU. The NTA thereafter found that the ONGC had in fact blacklisted the Petitioner and accordingly held that the Petitioner was guilty of concealment and misrepresentation, and accordingly issued the impugned order.

¶13

It is the case of the Petitioner that on the date when the selfdeclaration was made i.e., 27^th September, 2019, the order of ONGC dated 13^th September, 2019 had not been received by the Petitioner, hence the

¶14

declaration was not false. It is submitted that the ONGC order dated 13^th September 2019 was passed with retrospective effect from 3^rd April, 2019 but was received only on 30^th September, 2019 by the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the Petitioner, and in any event the Petitioner is entitled to explain its stand before the NTA. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that his client has also filed a response dated 15^th November 2019, to the NTA explaining the position.

¶15

On behalf of the NTA, ld. counsel submits that a letter dated 2^nd January, 2020 has been issued and the Petitioner has been asked to submit documentary proof of the statements made in letter dated 15^th November, 2019 written by the Petitioner to NTA. Accordingly, it is submitted that the NTA is considering the matter.

¶16

In the overall facts and circumstances, keeping in mind that the NTA is reconsidering the matter, which is clear from letter dated 2^nd January, 2020, the impugned order is set aside only on the ground that the Petitioner was not heard. The NTA is free to pass appropriate orders on merits after considering the representation the Petitioner dated 15^th November, 2019, response to the letter dated 2^nd January, 2020 and after affording a hearing to the Petitioner. This Court has not rendered any opinion on the merits of the issue.

¶17

With these observations, the petition and all pending applications are disposed of.

¶18

Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶19

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

¶20

JANUARY 14, 2020/ dj

Satvat Infosol Private Limited & Anr. v. National Testing Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satvat Infosol Private Limited & Anr. v. National Testing Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi Development Authority Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Delhi Development Authority Vs Delhi Pollution Contral Committee

Mrs. Shanti Devi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hans Raj Jain Vs Election Commission of India

Surrender Kumar Vs the Delhi State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Tanya Vs State & Ors.

Vindhya Shiksha Avam Swasth Samiti & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Rajasthan Delhi Education Society & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Dharmender Kumar Sharma

Delhi Development Authority Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Gandhi Smarak Sangharalaya Samiti & Ors. Vs Anil Dutta Mishra

Nand Kishore Vs Kamla

Union of India Vs Ram Niwas & Anr.

Vineet Sharma & Anr. Vs Pushpa Sharma