TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 12365-66 on the ground that the petitioner failed to start the catering service w.e.f. 21st September, 2016 and did not pay the security deposit and licence fee on or before 19th September, 2016. The respondent-IRCTC further in terms of Clause 4.8 of the tender document has debarred the petitioner from participating in future projects of respondent-IRCTC for a period of one year. 2. Mr.Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide three letters dated 16th September, 2016, the respondent-IRCTC awarded temporary licences to the petitioner for three trains and the petitioner was required to deposit the security deposit and licence fee on or before 19th September, 2016. He, however, states that the letters d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t at the risk and cost of licensee. 5. Mr.Ahluwalia lastly states that the punishment of debarment for one year is very harsh in the facts of the present cases. He points out that the petitioner has been an empanelled caterer for the Railways since 2005 and as of today is running five Base Kitchens and is employing two hundred and fifty employees. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-IRCTC states that as the petitioner is an empanelled caterer, it has furnished its email address to the respondent-IRCTC for the purpose of correspondence. He states that in the present case temporary licence of catering for three trains, namely, Amritsar Haridwar Jan Shatabdi, Patna Ranchi Jan Shadabdi and Durg Nizammudin Sampark Kranti Expr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt also finds that the tender documents in the present instance itself clearly stipulated that in the event the licence fee was not paid in whole or part, the applicant would be debarred from participating in any bidding process for future projects of the respondent-IRCTC for a period of one year. Clauses 4.8 and 1.1 of the General Conditions of License are reproduced hereinbelow:- 4.8 Non acceptance of award In case the successful bidder fails to accept the offer of award of licence along with security deposit and licence fee, within the stipulated time as advised by IRCTC, the licence shall be terminated along with forfeiture of security deposit and licence fee, whole or part thereof, as the case may be. Further, he will be deba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt did not provide specifically for blacklisting/debarment of the contractor. In the present case, Clause 4.8 of the tender document as well as the petitioner's own bid documents specifically state that the petitioner can be debarred for a period of one year on account of non-fulfillment of tender conditions within the prescribed time. 14. Recently, the Supreme Court in Bakshi Security & Personnel Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd., (2016) 8 SCC 446 has held as under:- "16. We also agree with the contention of Shri Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilised to make a fresh bargain between parties. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. It is also well to rememb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour som....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the present case, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been an empanelled contractor/caterer with the Railways for more than ten years and is at the moment running five base kitchens. 18. The concept of proportionality of punishment is not unknown to law. The Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 731 has held as under:- "26. In the case at hand according to the respondent BSNL, the appellant had fraudulently withdrawn a huge amount of money which was not due to it in collusion and conspiracy with the officials of the respondent Corporation. Even so permanent debarment from future contracts for all....