Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

The Louis Berger Group Inc vs Union Of India Ministry Of Road ... on 16 August, 2021

Author: Rekha Palli

Bench: Rekha Palli

                          $~25
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    W.P.(C) 8437/2021
                               THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC.                  ..... Petitioner
                                                Through    Ms.Vadlamani      Seshagiri       with
                                                Ms.Archana Lakhotia, Ms.Rashi, Advs.

                                                    versus

                                 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND
                                 HIGHWAYS & ANR.                       ..... Respondent
                                              Through  Ms.Kaadambari, Adv for R-2.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
                                         ORDER
                          %              16.08.2021

                          CM APPL. 26125/2021

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8437/2021 & CM APPL. 26124/2021(stay)

3. The present petition assails the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been debarred for a period of one year from participating in any DPR work of the respondent no.1, citing various infirmities in the DPR prepared by the petitioner/Consultant in a feasibility and DPR with respect to a project of 4 laning of a section of the NH-1A in J&K.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order, besides having been passed without following the principles of natural justice, is even otherwise perverse. He submits that the primary basis Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:17.08.2021 14:59:35 of passing of the impugned order, as recorded in para 3 of the said order, is that the petitioner had failed to envisage certain conditions in the DPR, that led to an additional cost of Rs. 2153 crores being incurred by the respondent on the project.

5. Issue notice. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, who is the contesting respondent, accepts notice.

6. Upon the petitioner taking steps, issue notice to respondent no.1 through all permissible modes returnable on 24.09.2021. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.

7. Keeping in view the fact that the contract in relation to which the impugned order has been passed was awarded in favour of the petitioner on 22.05.2004 and the work stood completed in 2009 itself, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date.

REKHA PALLI, J AUGUST 16, 2021 sr Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:17.08.2021 14:59:35