UNIBROS Vs. ALL INDIA RADIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by petitioner is directed against the order dated 10-10-1994 issued by the Chief Engineer (Civil), Civil Construction Wing of the Directorate General, All India Radio, suspending the business with the petitioner for tendering for the works under Civil Construction Wing at All India Radio. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is enlisted as Class 1 (Building) contractors in the department of Indian Posts and Telegaphs (Civil Engineering Wing), New Delhi. Because of the aforesaid enlistment the petitioner is entitled to give tender for construction work of any amount/level. Through press notice dated 7-10-1994 respondent No. 3 invited tenders for the work of "Construction Purview Theatre 'B' Wing at Siri Fort Auditorium, New Delhi. In pursuance of the said notice inviting tender the petitioner vide letter dated 5-10-1994 requested the respondent No. 3 to supply the tender documents for the works mentioned in the said notice inviting tender. However, by letter dated 17-10-1994 the respondent No. 3 refused to issue the tender documents to the petitioner for the said work stating that the department vide Memorandum dated 10-10- 1994 has banned further business with the firm and accordingly the tender documents were not issued. On 17-10-1994 the petitioner received a copy of the order dated 10-10-1994 whereby the respondent No. 2 has passed an order to the effect of "suspending business with the petitioner for tendering Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio". Accordingly, in the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and/or validity of the aforesaid order dated 10-10- 1994. By order dated 21-10-1994, this Court issued notice to the respondents to show as to why Rule Nisi be not issued and on the said stay application filed by the petitioner this court, directed that the petitioner might be given tender documents regarding construction of Preview Theatre 'B' Wing at Siri Fort Auditorium, New Delhi, as per advertisement.

(2.) The respondents have contested the case by filing the counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that while applying for pre-qualification for construction of Mandi House Phase II contract in 1988, the petitioner had stated that it had executed a work of value not less Rs. 4 Crores in the last 3 years. It is further stated that in support of the said statement the petitioner submitted a certificate from M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and that on subsequent verification and investigation by the Government through its investigating agency it was found that the petitioner furnished incorrect information and that in fact the petitioner never executed any contract of minimum value of Rs. 4 Crores. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that the contract allegedly executed by the petitioner for Maruti Udyog Limited consisted of five different and distinct contracts and that the petitioner had deliberately furnished false information. According to the respondents in view of the aforesaid conduct on the part of the petitioner of furnishing false information it was decided to suspend business dealings with the petitioner and that action for issuig a show cause notice for blacklisting the petitioner was being taken separately.

(3.) During the course of arguments by the counsel for the parties it has been brought to our notice that investigating authority on completion of the investigation recommended that the petitioner should be blacklisted. We are told that the investigating authority initiated the investigation in the year 1988 itself and submitted the report on 29-12-1992.