DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners assail an order dated September 10, 2015 issued by the appellate authority purporting to act in terms of the requirement under the Notice Inviting Tender dated April 2, 2014.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners participated in a tender process of Damodar Valley Corporation dated April 2, 2014, undertaken by the respondent no. 1. He draws attention of the Court to the various terms and conditions of such tender process including the Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealings. He submits that, when the employer is contemplating banning the business dealings of a participant, then, such proceedings are required to be initiated by issuance of show cause notice by a competent authority and the participant getting a chance by preferring an appeal to the appellate authority, if the decision of the competent authority is against the participant. He submits that, the competent authority and appellate authority are defined in Clause 3(ii) of the Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealings. He draws attention of the Court to the show cause notice and submits that, the same has not been issued by the competent authority. Under Clause 3(ii), the competent authority is the Director of the respondent no. 1. Chief Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 is the appellate authority. He draws attention of the Court to the order passed by the appellate authority. He submits that, the Chairman and the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 did not issue the order in appeal. He draws attention of the Court to the initial order passed by the respondent no. 1 and submits that, the same is nonspeaking. Reasons, if at all, given by the appellate authority will not cure the initial defect of no reasons in the order of the adjudicating authority. According to him, the respondent no. 1 has taken a decision without jurisdiction, as the authorities identified by the Guidelines for Banning of Business Dealings did not exercise jurisdiction to arrive at the impugned findings.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the respondent no. 1 did not ban the business dealings of the petitioners. Consequently, the Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealings do not apply. He draws attention of the Court to Clause 9.4 of the general conditions of the tender and submits that, the Earnest Money Deposit is dealt with therein. Earnest money is liable to be forfeited and that, the same is provided in Clause 9.4 of the general conditions governing the tender process. Forfeiture of earnest money does not require any show cause notice to be issued by a Director of the respondent no. 1 or an appeal to be heard by the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent no. 1. Nonetheless, the respondent no. 1 being an Article 12 authority provided the petitioners with a show cause notice and an opportunity of an appeal. At all stages, the petitioners failed to substantiate its case. He refers to other conditions of the tender process and submits that, there is an independent external monitor identified therein who recommended the forfeiture of the earnest money due to the dealings of the petitioners. It is upon such recommendations that, the respondent no. 1 proceeded to forfeit the earnest money deposit. Consequently, he submits that, there is no infirmity in the impugned actions taken by the respondent no. 1 to warrant any intervention by the writ Court.;