Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. It has also been argued that the Show Cause Notice must specify the intention to blacklist and reliance has been placed upon judgement rendered in UMC Technologies Private Ltd versus Food Corporation of India and others, 2021 (2) SCC 551; and Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2014 (9) SCC 731.

20. The learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has argued that after the Letter of Acceptance was issued on 09.05.2024, requesting the petitioner to sign and return its duplicate within seven days and to furnish unconditional bank guarantee of Rs.14.30 lakhs towards performance security within 15 days, the petitioner however wrote to the authority on 17.05.2024 that it had quoted Rs.6.08 crores and not Rs.4.76 crores and requested to revise the Letter of Acceptance accordingly. The respondent no.2 rejected such request by its letter dated 03.06.2024 and intimated that financial proposal was submitted in electronic form as per Clause 3.1 of Section 2 of the RFP and it had been duly considered, and it was found that the petitioner had categorically quoted a sum of Rs.4.76 crores as per Appendix C1 under Section 5 of the RFP. Therefore, revision of financial proposal was not possible and a request was made to acknowledge the LoA and submit performance security in terms of clause 10.4 of the RFP failing which action may be initiated as per clause 10.5 of the RFP and other relevant provisions of the RFP. In response to the said letter, the petitioner wrote again on 08.06.2024, repeating the same request for modification of LoA. The respondent no.2 issued another Show Cause Notice on 28.06.2024 as it was entitled to proceed with the actions as envisaged in the RFP. However, before taking any action in order to comply with the principles of natural justice, the authority issued Show Cause Notice requiring it to Show Cause as to why action of debarment of the petitioner (both firms), from participation in future Tenders for a period of upto 2 years should not be taken. The petitioner was given opportunity to submit its written explanation within 15 days of receipt of Show Cause Notice. The petitioner desired for an opportunity of personal hearing and the same was also given on 10.07.2024, and in case the petitioner failed to reply to the Show Cause Notice within the said period of 15 days it would be presumed that it had nothing to say in the matter, and the N.H.A.I. would be entitled to move ahead in terms of clause 10.5 of the RFP for debarment of the petitioner (both firms), namely Theme Engineering Services Private Ltd and M/s Ishita Infosolutions Private Ltd, for future projects for a period of up to two years.

29. On conclusion of arguments we had reserved the judgement on 03.10.2024, and granted an interim stay of operation of the debarment order dated 26.09.2024 till delivery of judgement. On careful perusal of the record, we have found several discrepancies in the case set up by the learned counsel for the petitioner. M/s Theme Engineering services Private Ltd had applied for the tender in association with M/s Ishita Info Solutions Services Private Ltd. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of the two firms by their authorised representative, Mr Sumeet Asthana. The entire pleadings on record and the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is with respect to filling up of the Financial Proposal on the electronic format as per clause 3.1 given in Appendix C-2 and C -3 of Section 2 of the RFP on the basis of which the Tender Evaluation Committee had to calculate the actual costs of supervision and monitoring by the consultant and determine the final financial proposal of a Bidder on its own in Appendix C-1 of such format.