DURGA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS Vs. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dtd. 26/5/2021 in Annexure-5, by which the bid of the petitioner has been rejected and the petitioner has been banned for 2 (two) years from being eligible to submit bids in CIL and its subsidiaries from the date of its issuance, taking recourse to Clasue-14(E) of the NIT; as also the consequential work order dtd. 26/5/2021 issued in favour of opposite party no.5 (inadvertently numbered as '4') vide Annexure-6; and to issue direction to the opposite parties to consider the representation of the petitioner dtd. 30/5/2021 under Annexure-7, within a stipulated period.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and participated in the process of tender, pursuant to the online bid invited by opposite party no.3, having digital signature certificate authorized by the Controller of Certifying Authority (CCA), Government of India, in respect of the work "Conversion of 3.3 kV overhead line (Pump feeder) to 33 kV overhead line to feed power to proposed temporary field substation near stock No-6 of Ananta OCP of Jagannath Area". Following due procedure of selection, the petitioner was declared as L-1 bidder. When the petitioner was waiting for the work order, on 26/5/2021, it was issued with a letter intimating that with reference to the NIT, the petitioner has participated in the tender and became L-1 bidder, but it failed in submitting the requisite document online as per NIT. Therefore, as per Clause-14(E) of the NIT, the bid of the petitioner was rejected and it was banned for 2 (two) years from being eligible to submit bids in CIL and its subsidiaries from the date of issue of the said letter. The very fact, that the petitioner was declared as L-1, establishes that it had produced all the relevant documents. Therefore, it was urged that subsequent rejection of its bid and banning the petitioner from participating for two years in the bids of CIL and its subsidiaries, vide Annexure-5 dtd. 26/5/2021, which amounts to blacklisting, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled position of law, and so also the consequential issuance of work order vide Annexure-6 in favour of opposite party no.5. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. M.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned communication/ order, vide Annexure-5 dtd. 26/5/2021, banning the petitioner for two years from being eligible to submit bids in CIL and its subsidiaries, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, having been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on TELSA Transformers Limited v. Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited, 2016 (II) ILR CTC-237 and UMC Technologies Private Limited v Food Corporation of India (Civil Appeal No. 3687 of 2020 disposed of on 16/11/2020).