M/S Shivam Engineers And Fabricators vs. State Bank Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shivam Engineers and Fabricators, sought to quash an order dated 04.12.2023 by which it was debarred from future bidding by the respondents, State Bank of India and others. The petitioner also sought to continue work allotted via a letter dated 06.09.2023, claiming no separate termination notice was issued and no complaints were received. The petitioner had commenced work on an electrical contract for the State Bank of India-Administrative Office, Ludhiana, valued at Rs.13,51,000/- plus GST, and claimed to have completed 70-80% of it to the respondents' satisfaction. However, payments were withheld. The petitioner received a communication dated 24.11.2023 terminating the contract for the Bathinda Zone without a hearing, followed by the debarment order. The petitioner alleged these actions were at the behest of an official against whom a complaint of illegal gratification was filed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands and had deliberately concealed vital and material facts. Specifically, the petitioner failed to disclose the institution of a civil suit challenging the debarment and termination orders, and the subsequent dismissal of its application for ad interim injunction on 06.03.2024. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had no valid explanation for this concealment and for not placing crucial documents like the DNIT, termination order, and show cause notices on record. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and V. Chandrasekaran vs. Administrative Officer, the Court emphasized the duty of a litigant to approach the court with complete facts and clean hands. The Court found this conduct to be an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, declined to delve into the merits of the case. The writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of concealment and not approaching the court with clean hands. The petitioner was also saddled with exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the debarment order dated 04.12.2023 and the termination order dated 24.11.2023 were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically without providing a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner approached the Court with clean hands and disclosed all material facts, as questioned by the respondents, particularly concerning a civil suit filed by the petitioner challenging the same orders and the dismissal of its application for ad interim injunction on 06.03.2024. Petitioner's contentions: The debarment and termination orders were issued without following the principles of natural justice and without issuing any show cause notice. Respondents' contentions: The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed vital facts by concealing the institution of a civil suit and the dismissal of its application for ad interim injunction. The respondents produced the plaint, the application, and the dismissal order as evidence.