Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner M/s. IVRCL Limited challenging show -cause notice dated 15.12.2014, debarment order dated 26.12.2014 and subsequent debarment/suspension order dated 06.02.2015.
(2.) SHRI G.K. Garg, learned senior counsel for petitioner -company, has submitted that the respondent No. 4 issued a notice -inviting -tender bearing No. 1/2012 -13 for execution of work of transmission main pipeline from Mallah (Bharatpur) to Kumher, Deeg, Kaman, Pahari and Nagar, and RWSS for 97 villages from Mallah Head works under Chambal Dholpur, Bharatpur Project Part -II Package -1 with operation and maintenance for ten years on single point responsibility turnkey basis. In response thereto, petitioner -company submitted its tender for the said work and its bid, being lowest, was accepted and work order was issued to it on 13.09.2012. A formal agreement between the parties was entered on 21.09.2014. As per work order, the date of commencement of work was 23.09.2012 and it was to be completed by 22.03.2015 followed by ten years of operation and maintenance part after completion of defect liability period. According to learned Senior Counsel for petitioner -company, the petitioner -company immediately on receipt of work order, employed its manpower and machinery for completion of work within the stipulated period as fixed under the agreement, but the respondent department was negligent in performing its part which caused unnecessary delay in execution of work for various reasons. Petitioner -company sent letter to this effect to the respondent No. 4 the Additional Chief Engineer (Project), Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bharatpur. The respondent No. 3, despite delay on the part of the respondent department and prior to expiry of the period of contract dated 13.09.2012, unilaterally rescinded the contract on 20.09.2012. Petitioner -company raised various disputes and moved an application on 07.01.2015 as per Clause 23 of the General Conditions of the contract along -with the requisite fee for referring the dispute to the standing committee. It was thereafter that the respondent No. 2 issued a show -cause notice dated 15.12.2014 calling upon the petitioner -company to explain why the permanent enlistment of the petitioner -company be not suspended and it be debarred from participating in the future tenders. Petitioner -company submitted a detailed reply on 24.12.2014 much prior to expiry of period of 15 days provided under the show -cause notice. The respondent No. 2, before expiry of the period of 15 days as envisaged under the show -cause notice, vide order dated 26.12.2014, debarred the petitioner -company from participating in the future tenders of the respondent department. Petitioner -company submitted a combined reply to show -cause notice as well as debarment order, on 07.01.2015 and sought withdrawal of the show -cause notice as well as the debarment order dated 26.12.2014. Even when the matter was pending before this court, the respondent passed further order on 06.02.2015 suspending/debarring the enlistment of the petitioner -company on the grounds not even contained in show -cause notice.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner -company has submitted that the petitioner -company is carrying out work on nine other major projects of the respondent department and that debarment of the petitioner -company may affect the work of the petitioner -company of those such other works of the respondent department and elsewhere in the country it may adversely affect the petitioner -company.;