NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. BHILAI STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-M/S. Naveen Kumar, who is registered 'A' class contractor, has participated in the Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT') and registered with the Bhilai Steel Plant since last 10 years. Respondents-Authorities have issued tender notification vide NIT No. CCNW/Edu/PR-14500000020/OT-2020300015 dated 08.04.2020 for the work of "Cleaning, House Keeping & Sanitation Services at BSP Schools in Township & Mines". Alongwith petitioners six other bidders have also submitted their bids. The Agency intimated the bidders including petitioner with regard to minor change in the working days and value of the work on telephone, which was accepted by the petitioner. Upon becoming successful in techno-commercial evaluation and opening of the price bid, the petitioner has been declared as 'L-1'. After becoming 'L-1', the petitioner wrote a letter to the Respondent Authorities on 8.8.2020 asking for reconsideration of the amount on the ground that the petitioner got confused by many of the data provided in the tender document and has quoted the lesser value / price for the work and has assessed the fresh price, which was more than the earlier price quoted by the petitioner. Letter was replied by the respondents-Authorities pointing out that the petitioner has quoted the value based on 313 working days and have requested the petitioner to withdraw the letter and to accept the quoted rate for the tender work. The petitioner again sent a letter on 12.08.2020 for permitting him to withdraw the abnormal price quoted by him and to grant him an opportunity to participate in fresh tender proceedings.

(2.) Respondents -Authorities, considering the above letters of petitioner, issued impugned letter / order to the petitioner on 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-1), in which, they have kept the petitioner on hold without issue of tender enquires up to next 12 months. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing instant writ petition on the following reliefs :-

(3.) Mr. B.P. Singh, Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, on the basis of the tender notification floated by the Respondents-Authorities, has submitted the bid wherein under Clause '4' period of work has been mentioned as 340 working days and in Clause 9.2, estimated value of job is mentioned as Rs. 51,29,488.20/- including of all taxes, duties, levies & cess excluding GST. The respondents-Authorities have amended the tender notification and made 340 working days as 313 working days and the estimated value of job as Rs.47,22,149/-. The petitioner immediately after opening of bids wrote a letter to the Respondents-Authorities stating that due to confusing clauses in the tender documents, the petitioner on account of lack of experience, could not assess the working days and the value of the work properly as mentioned in the tender document, got confused and quoted lesser rate, therefore, he may be permitted to work on the total amount as re-calculated by the petitioner. Respondents have arbitrarily forced to accept the quoted rate, against which, the petitioner has further written a letter to permit him to withdraw the abnormal price and also to grant him opportunity to participate in the fresh tender proceedings of the said work. Instead of replying the said letter (Anneuxre P-6), the respondents-Authorities have issued order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) suddenly without giving any prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, imposed ban for a period of one year from participating in the tender proceedings. He submits that banning / blacklisting is having civil consequences and, therefore, respondents authorities ought to have given specific show cause notice for taking any such action against him. In support of his contention, the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India and Another,2020 SCCOnLineSC 934, Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another,2019 SCCOnLineSC1607 , Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others , 2014 9 SCC 105 and Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others , 2014 14 SCC 731 . He further pointed out that in the tender document under the instructions to the bidders, clause 21 provides for Banning of business dealings. The banning of business dealings as mentioned in the tender documents is under the Circular dated 24.11.2014. Under the Order/Circular dated 24.11.2014, suspension is provided during the period of investigation by the Competent Authority and the maximum period of suspension is provided for six months and can be extendable for three further months. Even suspension as provided under Clause 3.8 of the Circular /Order dated 24.11.2014 without any show cause notice cannot be for a period more than 9 months whereas the Respondents- Authorities have passed an order for banning the petitioner for a period of 12 months. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been suspended. He further submits that the petitioner has filed the letter dated 01.10.2020 alongwith covering memo wherein the Respondents-Authorities have refused to reregister the petitioner, which is clear enough to show the petitioner has been banned without following the due procedure of law and affording due opportunity of hearing. Action taken by the Respondents-Authorities is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that under the Circular issued by the Respondents-Department on 24.11.2014, under Clause '2.0' grounds of Banning of Business Dealings is mentioned. Under the said grounds, reasons assigned by the Respondents- Authorities for banning of Business dealings with petitioner vide Annexure P-1 does not find place. Hence, the action taken by the Respondents-Authorities is per se arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. On above grounds, it is submitted that order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) be quashed.