SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dtd. 28/5/2021 bearing Ref. No.BCCL/CED/GM(C)/2021-22/120 issued under the signature of the General Manager (Civil/Welfare), BCCL- respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participating in future tenders of BCCL for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance of the aforesaid letter.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2015, the respondent-BCCL floated a notice inviting tender on 23/6/2015, being NIT No. BCCL/CED/TC/eNIT-13/2015-16/237, from reputed and experienced contractors for repairing of drain in up-gradation colonies (R.K. Colony, Project Colony, Brahmsthan Colony and CMWO Laikdih Colony) under CV Area of BCCL (hereinafter referred as the said work). The petitioner participated in the said tender and was declared successful being L-1. The petitioner's claim is that the work order was issued to it after about three years and only in the year 2018 the work was awarded by issuing Letter of Acceptance vide Ref. No. BCCL/CED/PC/LOA-14/2018-19 dtd. 16/10/2018, however, no site plan was made available to it. It is further claimed that after allocation of the site to the petitioner, fire bricks went out of stock in the entire BCCL area and as such it requested the Area Civil Engineer, CV Area- XII, Barakar, BCCL- respondent no.4 vide letter dtd. 20/8/2018 to allow it to use fly ash bricks, but nothing was done. Finally, the site/ location plan was made available to the petitioner vide letter dtd. 7/7/2020, whereby it was instructed to start the work at the earliest. It is further submitted that when the petitioner visited the actual site/location, it found several major issues at the site due to which it was not feasible for the petitioner to carry out the work, as the drains of the colonies proposed to be constructed were under the process of demolition because an open cast mining was started in that area. The petitioner duly informed the said problem to the concerned authority of the respondent-BCCL vide its representation dtd. 15/9/2020, however, nothing was done to resolve the said issue. Surprisingly, vide impugned letter dtd. 28/5/2021, the petitioner was debarred from participating in future tenders of BCCL for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance of the said letter. It is also submitted that the impugned letter has been issued without hearing the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice that too without considering any of the representations made by the petitioner. Even no specific show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking it to put its defence before issuing the said letter and as such the impugned letter of debarment is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was not at fault for any delay in execution of the said work, since due information with regard to difficulty being faced by it in execution of the said work was already given to the respondents within time. The letter of debarment involves serious civil consequences, as in effect, it casts a slur on the reputation of the company. The BCCL being a Government Company should have acted in conformity with the requirements of the principles of natural justice, particularly that a person must be permitted to represent his case before putting him on debarment. It is further submitted that final reminder dtd. 31/3/2021 (Annexure-E to the Counter Affidavit) issued by the respondent n.4 has not been mentioned in the impugned letter of debarment, which clearly indicates that the aforesaid letter was not served to the petitioner before issuing the impugned letter dtd. 28/5/2021, hence the same having been prepared subsequently could not have been relied upon.