Dismissed

Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co. v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC5 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/4960/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the rejection of technical bids for road work tenders, arguing that 'consent to operate' was not required under the tender documents. The Court held that the NOC requirement implied 'consent to operate' and dismissed the petitions as the petitioner failed to submit the document after being given an opportunity to do so, noting that the tenders were already awarded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions and accompanying miscellaneous applications were dismissed.

Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co. Vs Delhi Development… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~20 to 22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 4960/2024 & C.M.Nos.20307-20308/2024

¶4

TARA CHAND SUMIT CONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.S.K.Jain with Mr.Akshu Jain, Ms.Stuti Jain and Ms.Sishwa Bharti, Advocates. versus

¶6

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Shobhana Takiar, standing counsel for DDA.

¶7

+ W.P.(C) 4961/2024 & C.M.Nos.20312-20313/2024

¶8

TARA CHAND SUMIT CONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.K.Jain with Mr.Akshu Jain, Ms.Stuti Jain and Ms.Sishwa Bharti, Advocates. versus

¶9

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Shobhana Takiar, standing counsel for DDA.

¶10

+ W.P.(C) 4962/2024 & C.M.Nos.20318-20319/2024

¶11

TARA CHAND SUMIT CONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.K.Jain with Mr.Akshu Jain, Ms.Stuti Jain and Ms.Sishwa Bharti, Advocates. versus

¶12

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Shobhana Takiar, standing counsel for DDA.

¶13

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 09/04/2024 at 12:47:40

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶15

O R D E R % 05.04.2024

¶16

Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the decisions dated 26^th February, 2024, 05^th March, 2024 and 16^th March, 2024, whereby the technical bids of the petitioner for NIT nos. 50, 55 and 56 for road work in Nazul AC-II Narela Zone, were rejected by the respondent-Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted ‘consent to operate’ for a hot mix plant from the Central/State Pollution Control Board.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner’s rejection is unlawful, arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the NITs. He states that NOC issued by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (‘HSPCB’) to operate hot mix plant was not required as part of the technical bid in the NITs. He points out that the petitioner had submitted purchase bill of asphalt batch mix plant and ‘consent to establish’ the plant/unit in terms of the NITs. He emphasises that in a similar tender being NIT No.16, the respondent had specifically stipulated requirement of ‘consent to operate’ from Central/State Pollution Control Board. Therefore, according to him, exclusion of such stipulation in the subject tenders means that ‘consent to operate’ was not required. He also states that the petitioner’s bids for NIT No.50, 55 and 56 were much below the estimated cost.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent-DDA, who appears on advance notice, states that all the three tenders in question have already been awarded.

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 09/04/2024 at 12:47:40

¶21

Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that Clause (x) of the documents to be submitted for the technical bid in all the three tenders required the bidder to submit a ‘NOC from Central/State Pollution Control Board’. Such stipulation can only be interpreted to mean that a ‘consent to operate’ is required to be furnished by the bidder as the successful bidder will be required to operate the hot mix plant. Contrary to the statement made by the petitioner, NOC in Clause (x) cannot be construed to mean ‘consent to establish’.

¶22

Further this Court finds that though on 01^st February, 2024, DDA had given an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish a copy of the NOC for operating the plant on or before 05^th February, 2024, yet the same had not been furnished by the petitioner. Consequently, the present writ petitions being bereft of merit are dismissed along with the applications.

¶23

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶25

APRIL 5, 2024 KA

¶26

Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Itc Limited Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Prakritishri Aldaan & Anr. Vs Deepika Mittal

Delhi Jal Board Contractors Welfare Association Regd. Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13-1, & Ors.

Telenor South Asia Investment Pte Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Shashwata Dashora Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Food Corporation of India Khanauri, Sangrur (Pb.) Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Bathinda (Pb.)

Meenakshi & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bejon Kumar Misra Vs Vijay Kumar Dev & Anr.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Another

M/S Pravartee Sales Private Limited Vs Station Adjudant & Ors.

Dheeraj Rastogi Vs Dnata International Pvt. Ltd.

Indu Kapoor Vs Au Small Finance Bank & Anr.