D D BHALLA Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was awarded a contract by the Respondent No. 1 Airports Authority of India (,,AAI) for providing CNS facilities in the new runway 29/11 at the IGI Airport, New Delhi on 3 rd November 2008 for an amount of Rs. 41,79,126/-. By the impugned order dated 19th March 2009, the AAI cancelled the said contract and the Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said order. Also challenged in this writ petition is a show cause notice dated 6 th April 2009 issued by the AAI to the Petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not be debarred from participating in the AAI Tenders and the subsequent order dated 6th May 2009 passed by the AAI debarring him from participating in AAI tenders for a period of three years. The fourth prayer is for a direction to the Respondent AAI to open the tenders of the Petitioner that have already been received but not processed.

(2.) Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner first submits that a show cause notice dated 29th December 2008 issued by the AAI to the Petitioner has been taken as the notice preceding the termination of the contract. AAI has proceeded on the basis that the Petitioners reply to the said show cause notice was not found satisfactory. It is pointed out that the Senior Manager Engineering (E) AAI, Respondent No. 4 herein, referred to a letter dated 1st January 2009 of the Petitioner and described it as reply to the show cause notice dated 29th December 2008 whereas that letter was a request by the Petitioner for issuance of gate passes. It is claimed that the dispute regarding non-supply of 13 qualified personnel by the Petitioner was sorted out by the Petitioner with the Respondent at a personal meeting on 30th and 31st December 2008 itself. Mr. Sharma therefore, submits that any allegation contained in the show cause notice dated 29th December 2008 stood wiped out and the said document could not be relied upon. In fact subsequent thereto, on 16 th January 2009 a formal agreement was signed between the parties. Mr. Sharma submits that if the AAI proposed to terminate the contract with reference to show cause notice dated 29th December 2008, it could not have signed an agreement on 16th January 2009 with the Petitioner herein. It is accordingly contended that there is no basis whatsoever for cancelling the contract dated 19th September 2009.

(3.) According to the Petitioner, the action of Respondent No. 4 in engineering the termination of the contract was malafide because the Petitioner had in 2007 made a complaint against the misdeeds of Respondent No. 4 in relation to tampering with the bids submitted pursuant to the earlier tenders floated. The Petitioner also made a specific complaint against one Shri V.K. Gupta regarding reimbursement of certain payments. The third submission made by Mr. Sharma is that the order dated 6th May 2009 debarring the Petitioner from participating in the AAI tenders for a period of three years is wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the General Manager Engg (E) was not the ,,accepting authority and, therefore, had no power to debar the Petitioner in terms of the contract. Such power vested only with the Senior Manager Engg (E) i.e. the Respondent No. 4.