East African (INDIA) Overseas vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 11.10.2019 was unsustainable as it failed to disclose any reasons for debarring the petitioner for two years. The Court found that the order did not demonstrate that the concerned Authority had considered the views expressed by the Court in its previous order dated 03.09.2019, particularly paragraphs 15, 16, and 18. These paragraphs had emphasized the need to consider factors such as the timing of bid withdrawal, the offer and deposit of EMD, and the possibility of a genuine mistake in quoting prices. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2019. However, the Court clarified that this would not preclude the respondent from passing a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner voluntarily agreed not to participate in any tenders floated by the Government of NCT of Delhi or the CPA for a period of four weeks while the matter was being re-considered. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, East African (India) Overseas, challenged an order dated 11.10.2019, which reduced their debarment period from three years to two years for participating in tenders with the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Central Procurement Agency (CPA). This order was issued pursuant to a previous High Court direction on 03.09.2019 in WP (C) 9580/2019. The petitioner had withdrawn its bid after its acceptance, citing a genuine mistake in quoting the price for a drug with and without the GST component. The petitioner had offered to submit the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), which was accepted by the respondent, and the EMD was deposited on 28.03.2019, after which a show cause notice was issued on 27.05.2019. The previous High Court order had directed the respondents to re-consider the debarment period, taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances, including whether forfeiture of EMD would have been sufficient penalty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 11.10.2019, reducing the debarment period to two years, sufficiently considered the directions and observations made by this Court in its order dated 03.09.2019, particularly regarding the reasons for debarment and the sufficiency of forfeiture of EMD as a penalty? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and administrative review). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order, despite reducing the debarment period, failed to disclose any reasons for the decision. They contended that the order did not demonstrate consideration of the Court's previous observations, which highlighted that the petitioner had withdrawn its bid within seven days of acceptance, offered to submit EMD, and had quoted the same price with and without GST, indicating a genuine mistake. The petitioner also pointed out that the respondent had accepted the offer to deposit EMD and only issued the show cause notice thereafter. Respondents' contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents in response to the challenge against the order dated 11.10.2019. However, it refers to the respondents' previous submissions in the earlier writ petition regarding the debarment.