Full Judgment Text
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Judgment: 24 May, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 892/2019 & CM APPL.4055, 11615 & 6378/2019
MADHUCOM PROJECTS LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Mr. Sumit
K. Shukla, Advocates
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Padma Priya, Mr. Mukesh
Kumar, Mr. Syed Abdul Haseen, Ms.
Raka Chatterjee & Mr. Mohit Pandey,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Primarily two reliefs are being sought.
2. The first relief arises out of the letter issued by the respondent dated
18.01.2019 and uploaded on the website on 21.01.2019 disqualifying the
petitioner from participating in the tender process and in turn declaring the
bid of the petitioner as non-responsive on the basis of policy circular dated
02.01.2017 issued by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner shall not
be considered for award of any project in the respondent/NHAI till the
petitioner achieves the committed targets in a pending project, known as NT
project.
W.P.(C) 892/2019 Page 1 of 3
3. The second relief is sought in relation to a tender invited by the
respondent where the petitioner had participated.
4. As far as the second relief is concerned, learned counsel Mr.
Chaturvedi very fairly submits that since the petitioner is L-9, no relief in
this regard is required to be pressed.
5. As far as the first relief is concerned, Mr. Chaturvedi has drawn the
attention of the Court to a statement made in a writ petition filed by the
petitioner being W.P.(C) 2470/2018 decided on 10.04.2018, more
particularly, the statement as detailed below:
“3.2 Mr. Chhibber has returned with instructions. He says that
the impugned Policy Circular does not amount to blacklisting
and/or debarment of the petitioner. However, he says that on
account of the decision being taken at the meeting held on
08.12.2016, at which the petitioner was represented, it was
agreed that the petitioner would not be considered for any other
project till it achieved the physical milestone set out in the
subject contract.
3.3 Mr. Chaturvedi, on the other hand, submits that while the
petitoner’s representative participated in the meeting dated
08.12.2016, no such agreement was reached as is put forth by
Mr. Chhibber. It is the petitioner’s contention that it was a
unilateral decision taken by the respondent/NHAI.
3.4 Be that as it may, Mr. Chaturvedi says that he is satisfied
with the statement of Mr. Chhibber that the impugned Policy
Circular dated 2.1.2017 does not constitute blacklisting or
debarment of the petitioner.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the statement made by Mr. Chhibber is taken on record.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.”
6. Learned counsel submits that despite a categoric statement having
been made and on the basis of the statement, the writ petition having been
disposed of, the respondent has rejected the tender on the same very ground,
W.P.(C) 892/2019 Page 2 of 3
which was the subject matter of the earlier writ petition. He thus argues that
the circular dated 02.01.2017 be quashed.
7. Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned senior counsel, on instructions, submits
that the circular dated 02.01.2017 will not stand in the way of the petitioner
in participating in any future tender invited by the NHAI. However, he
submits that it may be left open to the respondent to evaluate the tender of
the petitioner on any other ground, which may be available to them. Mr.
Banerji further submits that in case the respondent wishes to blacklist the
petitioner or declare him as a non-performer, they would follow due process
of law.
8. The petitioner is satisfied with the stand taken by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the NHAI.
9. The NHAI shall remain bound by the stand so taken and in view
thereof, as prayed, the writ petition is disposed of.
10. Interim order stands vacated. NHAI is free to award the tender as per
the decision taken.
11. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
MAY 24, 2019
rd
W.P.(C) 892/2019 Page 3 of 3