BCPL RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner has impugned an undated memorandum issued by the respondents/authorities more specifically respondent no.3 herein whereby and whereunder the respondents/authorities had asked the writ petitioner to show cause as against the action proposed to be taken by them on account of over payment to the tune of Rs.86,26,465.00 in course of execution of 'Renewal/Re-habilitation of Over-head Equipment and Power Supply Equipment (Phase-VI)' which according to the respondents/authorities have occurred on account of malpractices on the part of the writ petitioner. By the said memorandum the writ petitioner was asked to submit its representation within a month from 3/12/2010 but not later than 5/3/2010.

(2.) Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner while challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned memo draws attention of this Court to the statement of imputation for banning of business of writ petitioner which has been annexed with the memo impugned. Drawing attention to the reply dtd. 5/2/2010 as given by the writ petitioner pursuant to the memo impugned it is argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that in the said reply the writ petitioner has taken a specific plea that identical issues i.e. issues regarding alleged overpayment was sub judice before the learned arbitral tribunal and therefore the writ petitioner has taken a specific defence in his said reply that there was no scope for continuing a parallel proceeding over the self same issue(s). Drawing attention to page nos.780 and 780A of the writ petition it is argued by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that though initially the respondents/ authorities were agreeable to keep the alleged banning process on hold which is evident from their letters dtd. 2/7/2010 and 6/7/2010 but all on a sudden by issuing a letter dtd. 3/11/2010 (Annexure P10 of the writ petition) the respondent/authorities had again changed their stance stating that the proceeding of black listing/ banning a business of a firm can be concluded even when arbitration proceedings are pending provided that proper show cause notice is issued to the defaulting firm and if the reply to the show cause notice is not found to be satisfactory it is imperative that personal hearing is given.

(3.) Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits before this Court that the letter dtd. 3/11/2010 being Annexure P17 of the writ petition as issued by the respondents/authorities is equally mala fide and the same also maybe quashed by issuing a writ of mandamus since the said letter dtd. 3/11/2010 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principle of natural justice.