Judgment:
Kang Gursharan Singh 2014.07.01 14:58 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
1.
Civil Writ Petition No.1832 of 2014 DATE OF DECISION : JUNE30 2014 M/s KCC BuildCo.Private Limited ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS2 Civil Writ Petition No.3170 of 2014 M/s KCC BuildCo.Private Limited ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS3 Civil Writ Petition No.4041 of 2014 (O&M) M/s PRL Projects and Infrastructure Limited ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....RESPONDENTS4 Civil Writ Petition No.4515 of 2014 M/s Shivalya Construction Company Private Limited ......PETITIONER Civil Writ Petition No.1832 of 2014 2 VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS5 Civil Writ Petition No.6740 of 2014 (O&M) M/s Lord Shiva Construction Company Private Limited ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI ..PRESENT: Mr.Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Manvinder Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP Nos.1832 and 3170, of 2014.
Mr.HS Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP- 4041-2014.
Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP- 4515-2014.
Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-6740-2014.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents..SANJAY KISHAN KAUL KAUL,, CJ.
(Oral) The writ petitions raise a common question arising from a list circulated by the respondents of non performing agencies/contractors seeking to affect vital rights of the Civil Writ Petition No.1832 of 2014 3 petitioners before us, being the contractORS.It is the say of the petitioners that if a dispute is pending inter se the parties, that by itself cannot amount to disqualification for participation in a tender so long as there is no blacklisting order.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the objective of having the list of non performing agencies was to make the department aware of the facts of the contractORS.It is urged before us that full information should be available to the tender awarding authority qua any action taken by the department against a contractor in a different circle or the same circle whether by way of termination of contract or arbitration proceedings pending.
He concedes that this does not amount to a blacklisting order.
The aforesaid being the position, it is agreed that the contractor must give full disclosure as the respondents are entitled to full information of any action taken by the department qua the same contractor.
However, unless the same has attained finality or has remained unchallenged, it cannot be an impediment for the award of the contract.
The net result, thus, would be that the Contractor would be permitted to participate in tender but with full disclosure.
It is agreed that with the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions be disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
It is clarified that as per the own stand of the respondents, the circular relating to enhanced performance has been kept in abeyance insofar as road work is concerned and, thus, the necessary consequences will follow.
Civil Writ Petition No.1832 of 2014 4 We further clarify that the bids which had been kept in abeyance can, now, be opened.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE June 30, 2014 ( AJAY TEWARI ) Kang JUDGE