RAJHANS TRANSPORT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by termination of contract and debarment from participating in future tenders vide order dated 11.02.2015, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is engaged in the business of transportation and handling of materials. The respondent -Corporation floated tender notice dated 01.09.2013 for work of handling and transportation from RH (Rail Head) Madhupur to PEG (Private Enter Pioneer Godown), Jamtara for an estimated cost of Rs. 3.36 crores. The petitioner's bid was accepted on the condition that if the petitioner qualifies as L1 it would be required to submit additional 10% bank guarantee. Vide letter dated 21.11.2013 petitioner's bid was accepted and an additional work order was issued on 27.11.2013. The petitioner furnished security deposit amounting to Rs. 1,68,000/ - on 09.12.2013 and it furnished bank guarantee for Rs. 67,20,000/ -. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted rectified bank guarantee. The petitioner claims that it commenced work of handling and transportation from RH Madhupur to PEG Jamtara and the work performed by the petitioner was duly entered in the measurement book maintained by the Depot Incharge of the respondent -Corporation however, no formal work -order/appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner could not obtain labour licence and EPF number. The petitioner made representations on 24.02.2014 and 06.03.2014 for appointment letter at the earliest and, in the meantime, the petitioner raised bill for Rs. 32,77,619.24/ - for handling and transportation of work for the period between 28.11.2013 to 03.01.2014 however, the General Manager (R) -respondent No. 4 stopped the work. Since appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner even though it had started work as directed vide, letter dated 27.11.2013, it approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6582 of 2014. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 4 issued show -cause notice dated 20.01.2015 and finally vide order dated 11.02.2015, allotment of work to the petitioner was cancelled and security deposit was forfeited. The petitioner was also debarred from participating in future tenders of the Corporation for a period of five years. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.03.2015 however, a liberty was reserved with the petitioner to challenge order dated 11.02.2015.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner furnished bank guarantee (B.G.) on 17.01.2014 which was within the stipulated period for submission of B.G. with penalty at the rate of 2% and, the bank guarantee was subsequently rectified mentioning the period of validity till 15.07.2016 however, the petitioner was not communicated deficiency, if any. For one year no show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor allotment letter was issued to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to rectify the alleged defects, after issuing letters dated 20.01.2015 and 04.02.2015, contract was summarily terminated and earnest money was forfeited. A further penalty debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders of the Corporation for a period of five years was imposed. Objecting to the action taken by the respondent -Corporation vide order dated 11.02.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action taken by the respondent -Corporation is illegal and it is in breach of principles of natural justice.