Vishal Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned letter dated 15th April, 2015 issued by the Directorate General Married Accommodation Project (‘DGMAC’). Vide the said letter, the contract bearing CA No. DG MAP/PH- II/PKG-23/A/14 of 2010-11 of the Petitioner for construction of dwelling units including allied services for officers JCOs/OR at Kirkee, awarded on 24th February, 2011, was terminated by the Respondent. In addition, vide the said letter, the Petitioner was also blacklisted in the following terms:

3. As per the Petition, the contract was awarded to the Petitioner in 2011 and the same was to be completed within 25 months i.e., by 9th April, 2013. Admittedly, the project was delayed and the case of the Petitioner was that the delay was due to the Respondents actions and inactions, because of which the progress of the work was slow. However, the Respondent argues to the contrary. Sometime in 2013-14, the Respondent stopped issuing tender forms to the Petitioner which raised the apprehension that the Petitioner had been suspended/ blacklisted and certain adverse remarks were also put qua the Petitioner. The Petitioner then filed writ petition being W.P.(C) 6076/2014 titled ‘M/s Vishal Infrastructure ltd. v. Director general MAP and ANR’ which was disposed of vide order dated 5th February, 2015 in the following terms: “Mr Jain, learned ASG, says that an additional affidavit has been filed yesterday vide diary no. 63160. Notwithstanding that, learned ASG says that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents, they will withdraw the Work Load Returns dated 06.06.2014 and 03.07.2014 with regard to the petitioner. Learned ASG further submits that, they will issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within one week from today. It is also submitted by the learned ASG that the petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a reply and be heard in the matter in support of its case. Having regard to the above, Mr Garg, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, says that the petition has, for the moment, worked itself out. He also undertakes that the petitioner will file a reply to the show cause notice within the time stipulated therein. same. The petition and the application are, accordingly, disposed of based on the statement of the learned ASG. Needless to say, the entire exercise will be concluded, within eight weeks from today. In case the result of the adjudication is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, it will have the liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit in accordance with law.”

4. The Petitioner was, accordingly, asked to file a reply to the show cause notice and the decision was to be taken by the Respondent. Thereafter, however, the show cause notice dated 9th February, 2015 was issued and the Respondent continued to ban the Petitioner from applying for further tenders. In the meantime, arbitral proceedings also ensued between the parties. The arbitral proceedings also continued to be delayed and the Petitioner who was losing out on various contracts with the Respondent, filed the present writ petition. Vide order dated 26th June, 2020, this Court had stayed the impugned order in the following terms: