RAJESH GUPTA Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the letter dated 06.05.2009 issued by the respondent proposing to take certain actions against the petitioner including debarring him from tendering with the respondent/MCD for a period of five years.

(2.) THE main grievance raised by the petitioner in the present proceedings is that the impugned decision, communicated to the petitioner has not been passed by the Enlisting Authority which, in the case of the petitioner, is a committee chaired by the Additional Commissioner (Engineering). An earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent MCD, registered as WP(C) 5738/2008, was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2009 and the earlier circular dated 07.10.2008 issued by the respondent blacklisting the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing was quashed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, a fresh notice dated 25.03.2009 was issued to the petitioner pursuant to which, he filed a detailed representation dated 30.03.2009 running into nine page (Annexure P -30), followed by another two page representation of even date (Annexure P -31).

(3.) THE factum of the respondent not considering the detailed representation of the petitioner is borne out from a perusal of the impugned order dated 08.04.2009, wherein only the submission of the petitioner limited to the extent that 'he was unable to execute the work due to unprecedented increase in the market and that it was difficult for the petitioner to complete the work in the period of inflationary trend specifically after the stipulated period of the contract', was taken note of and it was held that the petitioner did not have anything further to state and the matter was decided in favour of the MCD. This was followed by the impugned letter dated 06.05.2009 issued to the petitioner, rescinding the work awarded to the petitioner for construction of RUB at the level of crossing at Sarai Kale Khan -Nizamuddin on the risk and cost of the petitioner, forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the petitioner against the said work order and debarring him for further tendering with the respondent for a period of five years.