ASIF ENTERPRISES Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23/01/2001 passed by the respondent no. 5 at Annexure "A" and for a direction to the respondent Corporation to accept the tenders submitted by the petitioner for contracts as mentioned in para-8 of the petition and to award the said contract to the petitioner in accordance with law as if impugned order dated 23/01/2000 was not passed and to issue new tender forms to the petitioner for future cotnracts and accept and process the said tenders for future contracts in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner is an approved contractor of the respondent Corporation since 1990 and various contracts have been completed by the petitioner and it was awarded on average about 40 contracts per year from 1992 to 1997 and they were completed to the satisfction of the Corporation. The dispute relates in respect of the contracts awarded in the year 1997 which are as follows:

(3.) Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that the plaintiff-petitioner filed application exh. 5 for interim injunction in the civil suit. The trial court granted ad-interim injunction against the respondents as prayed for vide its order dated 2.2.2001. The respondent Corporation therefore, preferred Appeal from Order no.30 of 2001 in the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar. That appeal has been allowed and the interim order dated 8.3.2001 of the trial court has been directed to be vacated. However, the respondents filed a caveat in Revision Application in this Court which the petitioner could have filed against the order dated 3 1/07/2001 of the District Court. The petitioner has not filed any Revision Application till this date in this Court. When the petitioner failed to obtain interim relief in the pending suit, it has filed this petition which is an abuse of process of Court. The petition was filed on 7.8.2001 challenging the order dated 2 3/01/2001. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of undue delay and laches and this petition has been filed when the suit was already pending in the trial court. It is an uncontroverted fact and there is no attempt on the part of the petitioner to controvert that two bank guarantee nos. 173/1 for Rs. 2,38,780.00 and 169/1 for Rs.3,41,743.00 were forged and fake. It is asserted in the petition that some mistake was found by ONGC regarding the said bank guarantees and admitted to explain the forgery as mistake or lapse committed by the employee of the petitioner. In the judgment of the District Court, the act committed by the respondent-petitioner was never considered to be legal and fair and the petitioner has nowhere denied that the above said two bank guarantees produced by it were not forged or fake. It was admitted that it happened due to mistake of some of its employees. The respondent did not produce forged and fake bank guarantees as alleged by the appellant. Describing the submission of forged or fake bank guarantees as mistake by an employee, is a sheer misrepresentation. Another bank guarantee was also filed which was a forged or fake bank guarantee. That fact has been suppressed. There was no question of giving any personal hearing to the petitioner. It was given a notice to explain and substanatiate genuineness and correctness of the bank guarantees dated 30/12/1996 and 21/02/1997. The show cause notice dated 8.12.2000 was given to the petitioner as to why business dealing with the petitioner should not be banned. The petitioner filed a reply dated 14.12.2000 through its advocate admitting that due to its employee, there was a mistake in furnishing the bank guarantees. In the reply, no personal hearing was sought for. Even in the letter dated 5.1.2001, the petitioner had not sought for personal hearing but stated that it would like to explain the facts which could be possible by personal discussion. Hence, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. It is also stated that when the bank guarantees were subsequently discovered forged and fake, were accepted by ONGC as the petitioner was not aware of their forged and fake nature. Soon after the bank which has not issued the bank guarantees confirmed that the bank guarantees were forged, action was taken against the petitioner. Furnishing of forged and fake bank guarantees even by mistake of employee which in reality is beyond anybody's imagination, cannot provide any excuse to the petitioner. The impugned order has not been passed by Mr. Prakash Mehta. The impugned order has been passed to protect the interest of ONGC and has nothing to do with what might have transpired between the petitioner and Mr. Prakash Mehta. The action was initiated on the ground that the bank guarantees which were given by the petitioner were fake. By the letter dated 16.5.2000, the petitioner was informed that State Bank of Saurashtra had intimated that the said bank guarantees were not issued by the said bank. The petitioner's explanation was sought about genuineness and correctness of the said bank guarantees. From the reply dated 28/05/2000 it appears that the petitioner knew that its explanation was not sought merely with reference to the fakeness of any bank guarantee. Even in the show cause notice dated 8.12.2000, it was specifically pointed out that it was found that the bank guarantees were fake and not issued by the State Bank of Saurashtra. The facts mentioned in the show cause notice as well as the contents of the petitioner's reply were considered and then the impugned order has been passed as mentioned therein. The impugned order is not arbitrarily passed as a result of non-application of mind or based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations made in disregard of any irrelevant considerations, biased or violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.