Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by Ms. Aprajita Bansal, Advocate.
Heard Mr. Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for opposite parties.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2019 issued by the opposite parties contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition in so far as it debars the petitioner from doing business for a period of three years.
Mr. Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that no opportunity whatsoever has been provided to the petitioner before debarring the petitioner for a period of three years. So far as the impugned order of cancelling the contract is concerned, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 12.9.2019 under Clause 12 of Form B calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven days with respect to the alleged shortcoming found in the material supplied by the petitioner. The said notice was not with respect to the debarring/blacklisting of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Clause 12 in case of negligence on the part of the contractor, the opposite parties are entitled to take appropriate action and may even cancel the contract, however, under the said clause they cannot proceed to debar/blacklist the petitioner, it is beyond the scope of contract.
Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for opposite parties submits that there is a clause for arbitration under the agreement and the petitioner, in case feels aggrieved, can initiate the arbitration proceedings. However, it is submitted by Ms. Aprajita Bansal that so far as blacklisting or debarring of contractor is concerned, the said show cause notice was issued under Clause 12 of Form B.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the record.
The notice of show cause issued to the petitioner was under Clause 12 of Form B which was part of the agreement, it relates to the negligence on the part of the contractor in connection with the manufacturer and supply of certain material which has been found to be of inferior quality in the testing of certain random samples. It indicates that in the sample testing of cable supplied by the petitioner the tested cable sample failed to meet the requirements with respect to 'Conductor Resistance Test'.
The show cause notice is not with regard to debarring or blacklisting of the petitioner.
In view of above, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties have failed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order so far as it debars the petitioner for doing business for a period of three years.
Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 4, at this stage, submits that the opposite parties may be provided an opportunity to pass a fresh order in this regard.
In this view of the matter, with the consent of parties' counsel, the writ petition is disposed of finally, at this stage.
The impugned order dated 14.10.2019 is hereby set-aside so far as it relates to debarring of the petitioner for a period of three years. The opposite parties would be at liberty to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard.
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Asheesh