Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21036/2012 is a private limited company and is the lead partner of STUP-DARASHAW consortium. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Request for Approval (RFP)(revised one) dated 11.7.2012 which was issued in modification of the earlier proposal dated W.P.(C).Nos.19826/12 & 21036/12 18.5.2012. After the completion of the bidding procedures, the petitioner was granted a Letter of Award as per Ext.P3 dated 9.8.2012. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter of acceptance issued by the petitioner. Ext.P5 is the copy of the first show cause notice issued by the second respondent proposing to cancel the same on the ground that there is violation of clause 6.4.4. of the RFP. This was replied by the petitioner by Ext.P6. In fact, the allegation in the show cause notice pertains to certain orders of blacklisting issued by the Uttarakhand State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. as well as Rajkot Municipal Corporation. After furnishing reply, the petitioner submitted a detailed affidavit by Ext.P7. Finally, further actions were dropped and the petitioner executed the agreement which is effective from 17.8.2012 (Ext.P8).

4. The present proceedings started after the filing of W.P.(C) No.19826/2012 by the rival bidder, after the execution of the agreement. Based on the same, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P9 dated 1.9.2012. Therein, it was pointed out that the Government of Punjab by an order dated 27.3.2009 had blacklisted the petitioner from the list of Punjab Infrastructure Development Board and as the said blacklisting order will result in violations of the eligibility condition in W.P.(C).Nos.19826/12 & 21036/12 clause 6.4.4 as well as against the undertaking given by the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and the affidavit filed as per Ext.P7, the petitioner was asked to explain. Ext.P10 is the copy of the reply given by the petitioner to the said show cause notice. It is averred that again the petitioner has submitted another explanation along with certain documents, as per email dated 4.9.2012, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P11. In between, the petitioner had met the Managing Director of the second respondent on 4.9.2012. The petitioner has caused to send another email as per Ext.P13 after it came across a news item published in Hindu Daily that the agreement with the petitioner is proposed to be cancelled. The petitioner challenges the order Ext.P14 mainly on the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the petitioner was not offered a personal hearing. Various other contentions have been taken in the grounds of the writ petition.

5. As far as the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.19826/2012 are concerned, the petitioner alleges disqualification based on three orders of blacklisting issued against the rival. The first order mentioned is the one issued by the Uttarakhand State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., cancelling a Letter of Award issued to the third respondent. Exts.P5 to P8 W.P.(C).Nos.19826/12 & 21036/12 are the documents produced in support of the above plea. In support of the plea of blacklisting by Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Ext.P9 has been produced. It is also alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the Punjab Infrastructure Development Corporation has also blacklisted the third respondent from participating in the projects. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for quashing the Letter of Award issued in favour of the third respondent and to issue a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to award the Letter of Award to the petitioner.

"6. STUP prepared its para-wise comments in respect of the allegations raised by M/s. Mir Projects and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. In W.P.(C) No.19826/2012. On going through the same it was noticed that there was a blacklisting order by the Department of Transport, Government of Punjab against STUP for violating the terms of the agreement and irregularities in execution of some work in Jalandhar. The blacklisting order issued on 27.3.2009 did not specify the period of blacklisting, in other words the said order amounted to blacklisting for indefinite period. As such the blacklisting subsisted on the date of submission of proposal by STUP Consultants to KIAL. In view of the above development and on being the ground that there is misrepresentation of facts under clause 10 of the RFP and a clear violation of clause 6.4.4 of the RFP by suppressing the material facts, KIAL issued a second show cause notice to STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd. On 1.9.2012 (Ext.P9) as to why the consultancy agreement which was signed W.P.(C).Nos.19826/12 & 21036/12 between STUP and KIAL on 21.8.2012 should not be cancelled without any further notice and without prejudice to the right of KIAL to claim from STUP cost escalations, losses, damages, compensation and other expenses incurred or to be incurred by KIAL, in terms of the affidavit and indemnity provided by them. For the said show cause notice, the reply given by them was not at all convincing. It was very clear from the order passed by the Government of Punjab that STUP Consultants was blacklisted from the list of Punjab Infrastructure Development Board for various violations and irregularities committed by STUP in execution of the work at Jalandhar. The order of the Department of Transport, Government of Punjab, blacklisting STUP was a speaking order narrating the various violations committed by STUP and after considering the order dated 26.8.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No.19464/2007 filed by STUP.