Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

M/s Singh Caterers & Vendors & Anr. v. Indian Railways Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Mar 2017)

For every minor irregularity, a tender is not to be cancelled

MANU/DE/0774/2017

Contract

Present writ petition has been filed challenging termination letter passed by Respondent-IRCTC terminating temporary license awarded to Petitioners for management of On Board Catering Services in Train on ground that, Petitioners had failed to accept award of temporary license and had not paid the security deposit and license fee within stipulated time. Respondent in terms of Clause 4.8 of tender document also debarred Petitioners from participating in future projects of Respondent, IRCTC for a period of one year and forfeited Standing Earnest Money Deposit (SEMD) of Rs.3 lakhs.

High Court is of view that cutting/overwriting in present case is not a violation of a mandatory condition and is not material as there is no ambiguity or discrepancy in bid amount. Petitioners bid despite cutting/overwriting clearly mentions the revised bid amount. In fact, revised bid amount has been mentioned clearly both in figures and in words.

It is settled law that for every minor irregularity, a tender is not to be cancelled. Petitioners cannot make a virtue out of their own mistake. However, High Court is in agreement with the learned counsel for Petitioners that punishment of debarment for a period of one year is not proportionate, especially keeping in view fact that the petitioners have been an empanelled contractor/caterer with Railways and is at the moment serving another train by way of On Board Catering Services.

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., has held permanent debarment from future contracts for all times to come may sound too harsh and heavy a punishment to be considered reasonable. Consequently, the punishment of debarment of Petitioners in the peculiar facts of present case is reduced to nine months w.e.f. 26th September, 2016.

Relevant : Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors

Tags : TEMPORARY LICENSE   TERMINATION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved