Dismissed

M/S M J Engineering through Its Partner Mr Manoj Kumar v. Damodar Valley Corporation

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2023WPC/4858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination of contract and blacklisting via writ petition citing lack of show cause notice and violation of natural justice. Court held non-compliance with essential bid conditions justified cancellation and debarment, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/S M J Engineering through Its Partner… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4858 of 2023

¶2

M/s M.J. Engineering through its Partner Mr. Manoj Kumar

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Damodar Valley Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking, West Bengal

¶6

The Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation, West Bengal

¶7

The Chief Engineer & HOP, Durgapur Steel Thermal Power Station, Damodar Valley Corporation, West Bengal

¶8

The Deputy Chief Engineer (C&M), Durgapur Steel Thermal Power Station, Damodar Valley Corporation, West Bengal

¶9

… … ... Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Neha Pandey, Advocate

¶14

¶15

03/Dated: 12.09.2023

¶16

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

¶17

passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

By filing this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

¶20

a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that the order, contained in the letter dated 09.11.2021 (signed by the Respondent on 06.11.2021) issued by the Respondents (Annexure-15) debarring the Petitioner from participating in future tenders for a period of two years, is illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio since the same has been passed without any specific show cause notice or adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for debarment of the Petitioner.

¶21

b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, contained in the letter dated 09.11.2021 (signed by the Respondent on 06.11.2021) issued by the Respondents (Annexure-15) debarring the Petitioner from participating in future tenders for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said Order, in as much as the said drastic adverse order has been passed illegally against the Petitioner inter alia without giving any specific prior show cause notice to the Petitioner and also without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing the said order and also in as much as the said order is in violation of the well settled law which was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors. r eported in (1989) 1 SCC 229.

¶22

¶23

c) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, contained in the letter dated 10.11.2021 issued by the respondents (Annexure-16) illegally terminating the contract dated 26.07.2021 entered with the petitioner, in as much as the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the replies of the Petitioner and without giving any reasons.

¶24

d) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, contained in the letter dated 03.11.2021 issued by the respondents (Annexure-14) illegally terminating the contract dated 26.07.2021 entered with the petitioner, in as much as the same was passed mechanically, arbitrarily, in violation of the principles of natural justice and without considering the replies of the Petitioner.

¶25

e) For the issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in all tenders issued by the Respondents and also allow the Petitioner to continue business with the Respondents without any unlawful restrictions;

¶26

f) For the issuance of an interim relief that during the pendency of the instant petition the operation, implementation and effect of the order contained in the letter dated 09.11.2021 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-15) debarring the Petitioner from participating in future tenders may remain stayed.

¶27

g) For the issuance of any other appropriate order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.

¶28

It is brought to our notice that the petitioner challenges both the termination of contract as well as the blacklisting. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner was issued notices on two occasions, i.e., Annexure-2 dated 18.08.2021 and Annexure-4 dated 28.08.2021 that he has failed to submit the bank guarantee and he has also not filed the labour license.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such non-submission of bank guarantee as per the work order reference no. 1 and labour license would not make it ineligible to carry out the contract, rather the payment shall not be made to him. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the sense that the bank guarantee for performance contract is an essential condition of the bid document and violation of that will entail cancellation of the work order in favour of the petitioner. As far as the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice is

¶30

¶31

concerned, we are of the opinion that even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be able to satisfy us as to the cause that could have been shown by the petitioner in case a notice to show cause when issued against him for debarment/blacklisting. Notice of show cause before issuance of such debarment order would have been an useless formality, as in our considered opinion, the petitioner has no cause to show.

¶32

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶33

There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶34

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶36

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶37

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶38

APK/VK

M/S M J Engineering through Its Partner Mr Manoj Kumar v. Damodar Valley Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S M J Engineering through Its Partner Mr Manoj Kumar v. Damodar Valley Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Anupama Tyagi Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Federation Of Jharkhand Chamber Of Commerce And Industries Thr Secretary General Vinay Kr Agarwal Vs Union Of India Ministry Of Labour Employment And Training And Ors.

Software Freedom Law Center India through Authorised Representative Mamta Verma Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Dharampal Satyapal Limited through Its Director Mr Pawan Kumar Goyal Vs the Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Bansilal Katta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Adivasi Krishak Mahila Kalyan Parishad through Its Chairman Etwa Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand