M/S THERMO BLOW ENGINEERS Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court Shri Vijay Kumar Grover is carrying business under the name and style of 'M/s Thermo Blow Engineers' and is engaged in manufacturing and supply of various sports and fitness equipments. The respondent/DDA invited quotations for supply of belts and decks for Johnsons make Treadmill, to be supplied within 15 days of the order. The quotation of the petitioner having been accepted, an order was placed with him for supply of the aforesaid articles. After some days of the supply, the respondent complained that jerk was felt during workout of treadmill and there were chances of the user getting injured during the workout. The petitioner/respondent replied to the complaint, saying that the material supplied by him was as per specifications and also requested them to lubricate the belts atleast once a week. DDA, however was not satisfied with the response and claimed that the belts supplied by him were of inferior quality and were giving problem. This was followed by exchange of correspondence between the parties but DDA continued to remain dissatisfied with the products supplied to it. A letter dated 23.6.2012 was then issued by DDA to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why action against him be not initiated, as deemed fit. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 29.6.2012. In the meantime, several complaints were received from the trainer and members of the gym with regard to the problems they were facing in the treadmills. DDA took the opinion of authorized distributors of Johnsons make treadmill who advised against lubrication and also reported that the belts supplied by the petitioner were of inferior quality, short in length and not of proper elasticity, thereby creating more load on the motor. The petitioner was, thereafter, again served with a notice dated 25.7.2012 asking him to replace all the belts and decks within three days. He, however, failed to do so, whereupon vide letter dated 7.8.2012, he was debarred from further tendering in DDA. The petitioner made a representation dated 23.8.2012 against the order debarring him from further tendering in DDA. Thereupon, he was given yet another opportunity vide letter dated 10.9.2012 to change one belt and deck of Johnson make treadmill with the belt and deck of the same quality and size to prove his bona fide, but he did not do so. Thereupon, DDA purchased the belts and decks from another vendor.

(2.) Aggrived from the order of debarring him from further tendering in DDA, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition. Besides, quashing of the Circular dated 7.8.2012, he has also sought a writ directing DDA to make payment of Rs.1,65,150/-, being the price of the goods supplied by him to DDA along with interest on that amount.

(3.) The order debarring the petitioner from further tendering in DDA has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following grounds:-