Naresh Chand vs. Goverment Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the action taken by the respondent was justified and in conformity with the terms of the tender. The Court agreed with the respondent's submission that Clause 4.7 of the NIT was clear and did not contemplate extension of time for deposit under any eventuality. The Court found that the petitioner's medical condition, even if it existed, did not prevent him from depositing the amounts through a representative. The Court noted that the petitioner could make representations, indicating he was capable of communication and action through others. The Court distinguished the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, *Geeta Jeena*, stating it was based on peculiar factual circumstances and did not opine on the validity of Clause 4.7. The Court concluded that the terms and conditions of the tender were clear and needed to be given effect to, and there was no reason to interfere with the impugned action. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Naresh Chand, was the successful bidder for a shop at ISBT, Anand Vihar, Delhi, with a monthly license fee of Rs. 2,16,500/-. A Letter of Acceptance (LOA) was issued on October 11, 2021, requiring deposit of advance license fee, maintenance charges, applicable GST, water charges for three months, and an interest-free security deposit within seven days. The petitioner, citing ill-health and spine pain due to a previous accident, sought a four-week extension on October 18, 2021, and made a further representation on October 29, 2021. The respondent rejected the extension request and issued a show-cause notice on November 3, 2021, proposing debarment from future tenders. The petitioner replied on November 16, 2021. Subsequently, on December 17, 2021, the respondent debarred the petitioner from participating in DTIDC tenders for the current financial year and the next four years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's request for an extension to deposit the license fee and other charges, and the subsequent debarment from future tenders, was justified, considering the petitioner's alleged ill-health and reliance on Clause 4.7 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that due to ill-health and spine pain, he was unable to complete the formalities within the stipulated time. He relied on his medical records and a judgment from a coordinate bench in *Geeta Jeena v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.* to argue that compelling reasons should be considered. The petitioner argued that his inability to deposit the amount was due to circumstances beyond his control and that the drastic action of debarment was unwarranted. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the action taken was justified as per Clause 4.7 of the NIT, which clearly stipulated that after 21 days from the LOA, the LOA stands cancelled, earnest money is forfeited, and the bidder is debarred. They contended that the petitioner could have made the payment through a representative and that his medical condition was a ploy to justify non-payment. The respondent also argued that the *Geeta Jeena* judgment was distinguishable due to its peculiar facts (pandemic and farmer protests) and did not comment on the validity of Clause 4.7.