Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bla Projects Private Limited vs Damodar Valley Corporation Ltd. on 11 December, 2023
SLPC 27501/2023
R E V I S E D
ITEM NO.11+30 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.40417/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-07-2023
in MAT No.895/2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta)
BLA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With I.R. and IA No.245321/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.245320/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS)
WITH S.L.P. (C) Diary No.40402/2023
(With I.R. and IA No.251860/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.251859/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS)
Date : 11-12-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv.
Mr. Amitesh Ray, Adv.
Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR
Ms. Oindrila, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2023.12.12
Page 1 of 3
16:20:34 IST
Reason:
SLPC 27501/2023
Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv.
Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv.
SLPC D.40402/2023 Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. (*)
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv.
Mr. Amitesh Ray, Adv.
Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR
Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv.
Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv.
Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swarajit Dey, Adv.
Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv.
Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv.
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv.
Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Delay condoned.
2 Following the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Calcutta in Writ Appeal on 3 July 2023, the contract has admittedly been awarded for one year. The allegation against the petitioner, which has weighed with the High Court in the writ appeal, is that the petitioner had failed to disclose the pendency of a charge-sheet in respect of an earlier tender.
Page 2 of 3 SLPC 27501/20233 Mr Ranjit Kumar, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet have been stayed at the behest of the petitioner by the High Court and in addition, there is an arbitral award which has also enured to the benefit of the petitioner.
4 At this stage, it needs to be noted that the allegation against the petitioner was of non-disclosure of the relevant facts, namely, the pendency of the charge-sheet in respect of the contract of the petitioner in relation to a prior tender.
5 Based on the above position and the fact that the contract for the subsequent tender process has already been awarded, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6 Mr Ranjit Kumar, senior counsel submitted that the exclusion of the petitioner in the present case would effectively amount to a permanent act of black listing without an opportunity being given to the petitioner to show cause.
7 Ms Meenakshi Arora, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that (i) no order of black listing has been passed against the petitioner; (ii) the bid was disqualified only on the ground of a failure to disclose material facts; and (iii) consequently, it is open to the petitioner to make a proper disclosure in the future should any fresh tender be issued and any such tender would be considered on its own merits by the authority.
8 The above submission which has been urged on behalf of the respondent sufficiently meets the grievance of the petitioner that there is de facto an order of permanent black listing. As a matter of fact, it has been clarified that there is no order of black listing against the petitioner. Consequently, should the petitioner make a proper disclosure while bidding in the future, in view of Page 3 of 3 SLPC 27501/2023 the assurance which has been placed on the record by the respondent through senior counsel, the bid shall be considered in accordance with law. We clarify that this will not affect the award of the contract which forms the subject matter of dispute in these proceedings.
9 Subject to the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
10 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar
Note: Revised for updating the names of the counsel(*).
Page 4 of 3 SLPC 27501/2023ITEM NO.11+30 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.40417/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-07-2023 in MAT No.895/2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta) BLA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (With I.R. and IA No.245321/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.245320/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS) WITH S.L.P. (C) Diary No.40402/2023 (With I.R. and IA No.251860/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.251859/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 11-12-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv.
Mr. Amitesh Ray, Adv.
Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR Ms. Oindrila, Adv.
Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv.
Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv.Page 5 of 3 SLPC 27501/2023
For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swarajit Dey, Adv.
Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv.
Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv.
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv.
Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Delay condoned.
2 Following the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Writ Appeal on 3 July 2023, the contract has admittedly been awarded for one year. The allegation against the petitioner, which has weighed with the High Court in the writ appeal, is that the petitioner had failed to disclose the pendency of a charge-sheet in respect of an earlier tender.
3 Mr Ranjit Kumar, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet have been stayed at the behest of the petitioner by the High Court and in addition, there is an arbitral award which has also enured to the benefit of the petitioner.
4 At this stage, it needs to be noted that the allegation against the petitioner was of non-disclosure of the relevant facts, namely, the pendency of the charge-sheet in respect of the contract of the petitioner in relation to a prior Page 6 of 3 SLPC 27501/2023 tender.
5 Based on the above position and the fact that the contract for the subsequent tender process has already been awarded, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6 Mr Ranjit Kumar, senior counsel submitted that the exclusion of the petitioner in the present case would effectively amount to a permanent act of black listing without an opportunity being given to the petitioner to show cause.
7 Ms Meenakshi Arora, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that (i) no order of black listing has been passed against the petitioner; (ii) the bid was disqualified only on the ground of a failure to disclose material facts; and (iii) consequently, it is open to the petitioner to make a proper disclosure in the future should any fresh tender be issued and any such tender would be considered on its own merits by the authority.
8 The above submission which has been urged on behalf of the respondent sufficiently meets the grievance of the petitioner that there is de facto an order of permanent black listing. As a matter of fact, it has been clarified that there is no order of black listing against the petitioner. Consequently, should the petitioner make a proper disclosure while bidding in the future, in view of the assurance which has been placed on the record by the respondent through senior counsel, the bid shall be considered in accordance with law.
We clarify that this will not affect the award of the contract which forms the subject matter of dispute in these proceedings.
9 Subject to the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
10 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Page 7 of 3 SLPC 27501/2023(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar Page 8 of 3