AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,C.J. - (1.)Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-17) passed by Respondent No.3, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as "the PWD") whereby the petitioner Company has been blacklisted from participating directly or indirectly in any work with the MP PWD with immediate effect.
(2.)Briefly stated, the fzs of the case, are that the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-1 dated 18.5.2018 had invited tenders for construction of an elevated corridor (Fly Over) from Damoh Naka to Ranital, Madan Mahal (Up to Medical Road) in Jabalpur city. The petitioner Company participated in the tender process by submitting its bid, but the tender was not finalized. Thereafter, vide Anneuxre P-2 dated 10.8.2018 fresh offers were invited by the respondents Authorities for the same work. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner Company submitted its offer and after scrutiny and evaluation of the bid, a Letter of Acceptance dated 5.10.2018 (Annexure P-4) was issued in favour of the petitioner Company. As per the Letter of Acceptance, in terms of Clause 34.1 of Instructions to Bidders, the petitioner Company was directed to furnish performance security of Rs.34,04,71,074/- with a further condition that additional performance guarantee amount, which is to be deposited, will be informed separately. However, vide letter dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) the respondents were informed that the offer submitted by the petitioner Company was 10.54% above the rates of the tender and, therefore, the petitioner Company was not required to deposit additional performance guarantee amount. The respondents vide letter dated 31.1.2019 (Annexure P-6) demanded the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.26,49,32,640/- towards additional performance security. The petitioner Company raised its grievance against such demand vide letter dated 1.2.2019 (Annexure P-7). The respondents vide letter dated 5.2.2019 (Annexure P-9) again asked for depositing the performance security along with the additional performance security amount, as aforesaid.
(3.)To resolve this issue, a meeting was held on 14.2.2019 between the Directors of the petitioner Company and the Respondent No.2, in which the petitioner Company raised its grievance about the demand of additional performance security and it was decided that it would be appropriate to place the issue before the State Government, but till such time the petitioner has to deposit the amount of additional performance security. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 15.2.2019 (Annexure P-11) brought to the notice of the respondents that in the minutes of the meeting held on 14.2.2019 some issues were not mentioned, though raised by the petitioner Company specially regarding the time limit fixed for furnishing performance security and additional performance security. The petitioner requested for including such issues in the minutes. Though the response was awaited from the respondents in this regard, the petitioner was again served with a letter dated 26.2.2019 (Annexure P-12) in which the demand of depositing the performance security and additional performance security, now within three days, was reiterated by the respondents with the default stipulation. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.2.2019 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner again put his stand before the respondents regarding the aforesaid demand and simultaneously asked for some more time so that the dispute can be resolved amicably.