Brij Textile v. Union Of India And ORS.

$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4839/2024, CM APPLs. 19770/2024 & 21790/2024 BRIJ TEXTILE ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akhil Mittal, Mr. Sunil Mittal, Mr. Vineet Kumar Mishra, Ms. Glory Rana and Ms.

Karitika Seth, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Ashish Rawat, GP and Mr. Hari Krishan Badal, Advocate for UoI.

Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Satyam Sondh and Mr.

Sahaj Karan Singh, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 03.05.2024 1.

Petitioner has approached this Court primarily challenging Order dated 08.11.2023, passed by the Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital Society, debarring the Petitioner from participating in any procurement process or supply any items at Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital. 2.

The short contention of the Petitioner is that the Order of debarment has been passed without giving any advance notice to the Petitioner. 3.

Material on record discloses that the contention of the Petitioner is correct. No notice has been given to the Petitioner informing that it will be debarred from participating in any procurement process or supply any items at Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 11:38:39

4.

The Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 105, in categorical terms has held that the action of debarment has to be preceded by a notice specifically informing that it will be debarred for any infringement and in the absence of any notice, the order of debarment cannot be passed. The Apex Court has held as under:

"16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as "civil death" of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts."

5.

Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.

6.

The Writ Petition is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.

7.

It is always open for the Respondents to take such steps as may be available to them in accordance with law.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MAY 3, 2024/Rahul The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 11:38:39