TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he act of the appellant in not awarding contract to the respondent No. 1 M/s. UEE Electricals Engg. (P.) Ltd. was not in accordance with law. Though the contract awarded to the second respondent was not nullified, it was held by the High Court that the first respondent who was deprived of its right was entitled to costs to be paid by the appellant. Liberty was also granted to the respondent No.1 to file a suit for damages if it so thought appropriate. 3. Background facts as projected by the appellant DDA which need to be noticed are as follows: In March 2001, tenders were invited by the appellant for the supply and installation of Clear Water Boosting Pumping Station at Command Tank No. 1 at Sector 7. Clause 10 of the Tender Notice indica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. The further allegation that Mr. V.K. Kapoor demanded bribe from Mr. Ashok Sehgal was found to be incorrect. The allegation that Mr. Ashok Sehgal was physically beaten up by Mr. V.K. Kapoor was also found to be not correct in view of the statements given by some eyewitnesses. It was, therefore, recommended that necessary action should be taken by the competent authority. 4. On 23-7-2001 the price bid, so far as the tender in question, was opened and the respondent No. 1 was declared to be a successful bidder. However, on 28-8-2001 the Project Manager (Electrical) wrote to the Secretary, Contractor Registration Board requesting for appropriate action against the respondent No. 1- company in the light of the Enquiry Report referred to abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a period of five years. A Writ Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Contractor Registration Board. Learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Contractor Registration Board keeping in view of the impugned judgment dated 12-7-2002. However, liberty was given to the Appellant-Authority to issue a detailed and reasoned order. It appears that subsequently on 3-1-2003 a fresh order, debarring the respondent No. 1 - company and its Director for a period of five years, has been passed. That is the subject-matter of challenge in WP(C) 156 of 2003. 9. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant - DDA submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The scope of judi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No.1 - Company and its Directors are separate legal entities. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that a director of a company had done some objectionable act, that could not have been considered as a ground to refuse acceptance of the tender submitted by the respondent No. 1 - Company particularly when the prices offered were lowest. 11. One can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is 'illegality' the second 'irrationality', and the third 'procedural impropriety'. These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service 1984 3 All ER 935 (commonly known as CCSU ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fide in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable I nference from proved facts-S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 1964 (4) SCR 733. It cannot be overlooked that burden of establishing mala fide....