CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging issuance of letter dated 30.05.2014 whereby the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited and M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises, a partnership firm has been black listed, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the eligibility criteria in NIT relating to work experience, only requires that a tenderer should have executed works of similar nature valuing 65% of the "Annualized Value" of the work or estimated value of work, whichever is less put to tender in any year during last 7 years. He further pointed out that the petitioner furnished the work order, the letter of intent and since at the relevant time the work experience certificate was not issued by the employer namely, Hindustan Steel Works Limited, "in the column of work experience, certificate number and date" on the advice of the technical provider-M/s. C1 India, of the respondent-CCL, the petitioner entered "Zero" in the relevant field and thus, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner furnished a false information. The order of forfeiture of earnest money and black listing the firm of the petitioner has been assailed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitting that though, the petitioner vide letter dated 30.04.2014 explained factual situation, the defence of the petitioner has not been considered before issuing the impugned order dated 30.05.2014. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL submits that, the petitioner at the time of verification of the documents produced the work order and letter of intent only which would not conclusively establish that the firm of the petitioner has successfully completed the work allotted to him. The petitioner failed to produce "Satisfactory Work Execution Certificate" which is mandatory requirement under NIT and since he gave wrong information, the tender allotted to the petitioner was cancelled and consequently, the earnest money was forfeited and an order black listing the firm of the petitioner has also been passed.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.