Delhi High Court - Orders
Jmc Projects (India) Lid. & Ors vs National Highways Authority & Anr on 29 November, 2021
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~1(SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13160/2021 & CM APPL. 41526/2021 (For Exemption), CM
APPL. 41527/2021 (For Interim Relief)
JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LID. & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Shamik Sanjanwala, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Parag P. Tripthi, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Gunjan Sinha Jain, Ms.Aparna
Gupta and Mr.Anirudh Dusraj, Advs.
for R-1.
Ms.Manisha Agarawal Narain,
Ms.Rakhshita Goyal and Mr.Aditya
Deshwal, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 29.11.2021 Ms.Manisha Agarwal, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 prays for and is granted time to complete instructions. The instructions would have some relevance since respondent No. 1 has essentially proceeded in the backdrop of a security clearance having being refused by respondent No. 2.
Insofar as the contentions noted in the order of the Court dated 23.11.2021 are concerned, it is contended by Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel that a holistic reading of clause 2.1.12 would show and establish that the cap of "not less than 50%" is liable to be viewed as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:02.12.2021 15:14:54 applying not just to the consortium as a whole but also to all its constituent members. According to Mr. Tipathi, since in the present matter the consortium member is a Turkish company and since its shareholding is held by residents outside the country to the extent of more than 50%, the respondents were obliged to obtain security clearance.
The Court also takes note of the contention of Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel who contends that the consortium partner of the present petitioner is presently undertaking work of construction in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and therefore the refusal of the respondent No. 2 to grant security clearance cannot possibly be countenanced or sustained.
The Court also takes note of the submission made on behalf of the first respondent who apprises the Court that the LOA has been awarded to the second highest bidder [L 2] who has matched the tender price as quoted by the petitioner herein and that the aforesaid award has been made subject to further orders being passed on the writ petition.
Since the matter would require further consideration and Ms. Aggarwal has been unable to complete instructions, let this matter be posted before the Roster Bench on 03.12.2021.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 29, 2021 SU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:02.12.2021 15:14:54