Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14 In fact, respondent No. 1 had refunded the petitioners earnest money deposit and personal bank guarantee which clearly indicated that respondent No. 1 was satisfied with the execution of purchase order by the petitioner company.

15 On 4/7/2016, respondent No. 2 had given show-cause notice for blacklisting the petitioner. The petitioner informed that despite being advised to give clearance from the Central Bank of India that the petitioner was not actually blacklisted, no such letter was placed on record and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why it should not be blacklisted and debarred from participation in any Request For Proposal(RFP) process of Respondent No. 2-Punjab National Bank. The petitioner was directed to give reply by 15/8/2016. The second notice was sent on 22/12/2016. The petitioner had filed its reply on 4/1/2017 and respondent No. 2 was informed that the order dated 5/1/2012 issued by respondent No. 1 was violative of the principle of natural justice. No notice was served upon the petitioner before blacklisting the company. Respondent No. 2 was informed that the order dated 5/1/2012 was under challenge by way of Writ Petition before Talwalkar 9 wp2909.17.doc the Bombay High Court and the matter is placed for hearing on 25/1/2017. The petitioner was not permitted to participate in the reverse auction by respondent No. 2 and hence, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 4575 of 2016. The same was decided by a Judgment dated 31/5/2016. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was the denial by respondent No. 2 to participate in the reverse auction on the ground that the bid of the petitioner was violative of clause 2(ix) of the instructions to the bidders.

"period of debarment ended on 4/1/2014, which falls in the accounting year 2013-2014, which is within 3 years prior to the year 2015-16 and therefore, the action taken by the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to participate in reverse auction cannot be faulted."

Talwalkar 10 wp2909.17.doc 17 The Delhi High Court was apprised of the fact that the order dated 5/1/2012 is under challenge before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and therefore, the Court had made it clear that the Judgment of the Delhi High Court will not come in the way of the petitioner in those proceedings.

8 In the facts of the present case, we find that the period of debarment ended on 4/1/2014 which falls in the accounting year 2013-14, which is within three years prior to the year 2015-16 and, therefore, the action taken by the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the reverse auction, cannot be faulted.

9. Before we may conclude, we point out that the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the blacklisting order dated 05.01.2012 has been challenged by the Petitioner in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. We are making it clear that the present decision will not come in the way of the petitioner in those proceedings."