Disposed

Neev Energy LLP and Another v. Energy Efficiency Services Limited

Delhi HC9 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/16998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a two-year blacklisting communication issued to the petitioner by the respondent. The respondent withdrew the impugned communication on instructions, rendering the grievance infructuous. The court disposed of the petition with directions for formal withdrawal, website update, and liberty to initiate fresh proceedings with a fresh show cause notice.

What the court decided

AI extract

Neev Energy LLP and Another Vs Energy… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~112

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16998/2024 & CM APPLs. 72073/2024, 72074/2024, 72075/2024

¶4

NEEV ENERGY LLP AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Milanka Chaudhury, Mr. Ashly Cherian, Ms. Harshita Aggarwal, Mr. Shivankar Sukul and Mr. Akshay, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay, Ms. Monika Sharma, Mr. Ashish Kumar Sharma and Ms. Apoorva Pal, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 09.12.2024

¶11

The present writ petition impugns communication dated 29^th October, 2024¹ issued by the Respondent, whereby Petitioner No. 1 has been blacklisting and barred from participating in the tenders issued by Respondent, for a period of two years, effective from 29^th October, 2024 to 28^th October, 2026.

¶12

Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Counsel for Petitioners, raises several grounds to assail the impugned communication, including lack of a prior show cause notice leading up to the blacklisting/banning action.

¶13

On the other hand, Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay, counsel for Respondent

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 08:20:21

¶15

points out that the impugned order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 11^th May, 2023. However, acknowledging the objections raised by the Petitioners, he, on instructions, states that the Respondent, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, has decided to withdraw the impugned communication dated 29^th October, 2024. He further seeks liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for blacklisting, if so required, after issuing a new show cause notice to the Petitioners.

¶16

In addition, counsel for the Respondent raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. He argues that the dispute between the parties is already the subject matter of ongoing arbitration proceedings, which encompass the issues forming the basis of the impugned blacklisting. In response, Mr. Nayar asserts that the writ petition is maintainable as it challenges the Respondent’s exercise of executive powers in terms of blacklisting the Petitioner, which is distinct from the contractual disputes being adjudicated in arbitration.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of both sides and noting the Respondent’s decision to withdraw the impugned communication, this Court refrains from rendering any opinion on the maintainability of the writ petition. The decision to withdraw the blacklisting order renders the Petitioners’ grievance, for the time being, infructuous.

¶18

Thus, in light of the statement made by the Respondent, the present writ petition is disposed of with following directions: (i) The Respondent shall within four days from today issue a formal communication withdrawing the impugned letter dated 29^th October, 2024. (ii) The Respondent shall also update its website within 48 hours,

¶19

1 “Impugned communication”

¶20

¶21

ensuring that the withdrawal is duly reflected in its records and visible to all stakeholders.

¶22

(iii) The Respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for blacklisting/banning the Petitioner, if so advised, in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice and the applicable legal framework. Any such action shall be preceded by a fresh show cause notice clearly specifying the grounds and the proposed action.

¶23

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶24

With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, along with pending applications.

¶25

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶26

DECEMBER 9, 2024 as

¶27

Neev Energy LLP and Another v. Energy Efficiency Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Neev Energy LLP and Another v. Energy Efficiency Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davinder Bajaj Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), Delhi & Ors.

Vmvs Textiles Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1) & Anr.

Mr. J. Chakraborty Vs M/S Gail (India) Limited & Anr.

Ashish Kumar Shukla Proprietor S.P.S Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Ex Rect Bhuw Aneshw Ar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh Jiwachh Prasad Roy Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Mohit International through, Prop. Harsh Anil Kumar Vasant Vs Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Exports) & Ors.

Echo International and Ors. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Import and Anr.

Masasasong Ao Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Menka Rana Vs the Chairman, Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee Saket District Courts, Nd and Ors.

Dharmendra Singh Vs Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.

Ms. Ruby Vs the State( Government of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Surbhi Pathak Vs Gail India Ltd. & Anr.

Planet Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Oration Ltd. through Its Chairmain