Prl Project And Infrastructure Ltd v. Airports Authority Of India

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5307/2020 PRL PROJECT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Ms.Nikita Salwan, Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Mr.Bankim Garg and Mr.Chaitanya Bansal, Advs.

versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Digvijay Rai and Mr.Aman Yadav, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 17.08.2020 This hearing has been held by video conferencing. CM No.19172/2020 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No.19173/2020 (Exemption from filing notarized affidavit) This application has been filed seeking exemption from filing duly notarised affidavits. Binding the deponent of the affidavit to the contents of the application, the exemption is granted.

Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5307/2020 1.

By this petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:

"i. Direct the Respondent to remove the name of the Petitioner from its list of Temporarily Debarred/ Debarred Contractors.

ii.

Quash the Order dated 16.11.2018 whereby the Petitioner has been restrained from undertaking any further projects with the Respondent."

2.

The petition is premised on the certain facts which have admittedly taken place after the order dated 16.11.2018 had been passed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the order dated 16.11.2018 and in spite of the clarification issued on 30.07.2019, the petitioner is suffering as the other authorities are considering the petitioner ineligible from participating in the tender(s) floated by them. She however, fairly admits that the petitioner has not made any representation to the respondent based on the subsequent facts for withdrawal of the order dated 16.11.2018. She submits that present petition be considered as a representation.

3.

In view of the submissions, the respondent is directed to consider the contents of the present petition as a representation of the petitioner and decide the same within a period of two weeks, communicating the order passed thereon to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to file additional representation, if so advised, to the respondent within two days from today.

4.

Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved of such decision of the respondent, it shall always be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with the law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. 5.

The petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be

no order as to costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 17, 2020/Arya