B M Construction Company v. Union Of India

$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14170/2025 and CM APPL.58117/2025 B M CONSTRUCTION COMPANY .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Mr. Ishaan Garg, Ms. Anjana Sharma, Mr.

Suryansh Sharma and Ms. Ruby Sharma, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr.Yogya Bhatia, Advs., Mr.

Shiv Kumar, AXEN/C/SERD and Mr.

Sujeet Kumar, SSE/W/C.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 15.09.2025

O R D E R

CM APPL.58116/2025 (Exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 14170/2025 and CM APPL.58117/2025 3.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing a notice dated 08.09.2025, issued by the respondent. The said notice reads as under: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

The above notice has been issued in the backdrop of contract awarded The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

to the petitioner for rebuilding of washing lines with proper pits, sewage arrangements, and other allied works at the Shatabdi Complex, New Delhi Railway Station. The Petitioner claims to have successfully executed approximately 99% of the work under the said contract. 5.

It is the case of the petitioner that false allegations regarding subcontracting of work to M/s Zetwerk Manufacturing Businesses Pvt. Ltd. have been levelled by the authorities of the Railways from time to time to which, the petitioner has duly responded. It is submitted that M/s Zetwerk Manufacturing Businesses Pvt. Ltd. is merely a vendor of the petitioner and not a sub-contractor.

6.

A perusal of the notice dated 08.09.2025 reveals that by way thereof, the petitioner has only been requested to submit all relevant details / facts to establish that the contractual work awarded to the petitioner was not sub-let to M/s Zetwerk Manufacturing Businesses Pvt. Ltd. 7.

The petitioner states that it has already submitted a reply to the said notice and further submits that all documents pertaining to the transactions/ dealings between the petitioner and M/s Zetwerk Manufacturing Businesses Pvt. Ltd. shall also be supplied to the respondent. 8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions, that all relevant documents pertaining to the aforesaid transactions, including contracts and statements, shall also be provided by the petitioner. 9.

Mr. Rohan Jaitley, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC), who appears on advance notice, fairly submits, on instructions, that in the event any termination action is proposed to be taken against the petitioner, a fresh notice shall be given in accordance with the contractual provisions, and an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

prior to taking any such termination action. 10.

In the circumstances, given that the impugned notice has not yet culminated in any adverse action, and in view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent, no further orders are warranted at this stage.

11.

Needless to say, in case any adverse action is taken by the respondent against the petitioner, (after adhering to the aforesaid procedural formalities), the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate contractual remedies, including invocation of the arbitration clause contained in the contract between the parties.

12.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/cl The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.