Delhi High Court - Orders
Jmc Projects (India) Ltd & Ors vs National Highways Authority & Ors on 2 June, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9105/2022 and CM APPL. 27406/2022 (Interim Relief)
JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Shamik Sanjanwala,Mr. Sunil
Mittal, Mr. Arjit Srkar, Mr. Ayush
Agarwal and Mr. Amit Sagar, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC
with Mr. Aditya Sginh Deshwal, Ms.
Mona Dureja and Ms. Rakshita
Goyal, Advs. for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 02.06.2022 CM APPL. 27405/2022 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application shall stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9105/2022 and CM APPL. 27406/2022 (Interim Relief) Notice shall issue to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 only at this stage. Since those respondents are duly represented by learned counsels, let counter affidavits be filed on the writ petition on or before the next date fixed.
The present writ petition has been preferred pursuant to the asserted Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:54:58 liberty accorded by the Supreme Court in terms of its order of 20 May 2022 passed on Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9385-9386/2022. The challenge in the present writ petition principally is to the denial of security clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs [MHA] which has in turn rendered the petitioner disqualified from participating in the tender which was floated by the National Highways Authority of India [NHAI].
Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have taken an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition insofar as it seeks to assail the denial of security clearance contending that the learned Judge in the earlier round of litigation had clearly recorded that no serious challenge had been raised to the denial of security clearance. It was further pointed out that in the LPA No. 154/2022 which was preferred, although certain submissions in that respect were sought to be addressed, those were negatived with the Division Bench observing thus:-
"As far as the new grounds of challenge regarding lack of reasons for denial of security clearance etc. are concerned, we are afraid we cannot allow the same to be agitated in the present appeal. The prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition have also been quoted hereinabove. From a reading of the same, it would be apparent that the appellants have not sought any specific prayer challenging the denial of security clearance to it. Its entire focus was on its submission that such security clearance was not required. Having failed in such submission, it cannot now be allowed to set up a new case in the present appeal and convert this court into a court of first instance."
In view of the aforesaid, it was submitted that since the petitioner had failed to assail the decision of the MHA denying security clearance, the reliefs as framed in the writ petition insofar as that aspect is concerned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:54:58 cannot possibly be granted. Learned counsels further contend that even the liberty as accorded by the Supreme Court was subject to the same being otherwise permissible in law.
Mr. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petition on the other hand contends that despite the Division Bench having refused liberty to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid issue in the LPA, the Supreme Court has in its order of 20 May 2022 clearly observed that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the denial of security clearance on its own merits. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Nigam would submit that the objection as taken would not sustain.
The Court at this stage is of the considered opinion that the objection which stands raised would merit further scrutiny and shall be open to be considered at the time when the writ petition is set down for further consideration.
The Court is further informed that the contract in question has been awarded to Tata Projects Limited. However since presently the Court is principally considering the issue of denial of security clearance, no notice need be issued to the fourth respondent at this stage.
List again on 16.08.2022.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
JUNE 2, 2022 SU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:54:58