It was also decided that in case the rates were number lowered, fresh tender was to be issued.
1 companypany in the light of the Enquiry Report referred to above.
In the instant case all the relevant aspects were taken by the Authority into account and thereafter the tender submitted by the respondent No.
At about 3.45 P.M., an FIR was lodged by Mr. V.K. Kapoor for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC before the Dabri Police Station, Delhi.
2004 3 SCR 286 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
1 should number be companysidered since show cause numberice was being issued to it.
1 Company.
Therefore the Writ Application was disposed of with the directions as numbered above.
1 on 5.12.2001 requiring it to show cause why it should number be blacklisted by the appellant Authority.
Ltd. was number in accordance with law.
Respondent No.
Background facts as projected by the appellant DDA which need to be numbericed 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.
A Writ Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Contractor Registration Board.
Reply to the show cause numberice was submitted on 13.12.2001.
The matter was also referred for enquiry to the Executive Engineer Headquarter of DDA.
1 companypany in assaulting an employee of the Appellant Authority and causing serious injuries was number sufficient to take action against the respondent No.
The High Court proceeded is if there were mala fides involved and that the action of the Director of respondent No.
1 companypany was rejected.
Mr. Ashok Sehgal submitted a letter to the Commissioner of Police at about 8 P.M. on the same date making allegations against officials of DDA.
However, liberty was given to the Appellant Authority to issue a detailed and reasoned order.
It appears that subsequently on 14.8.2002 the Contractor Registration Board debarred the respondent No.
23987/2002.
A Writ Petition was filed by the respondent No.
3 in the writ petition before the High Court .
The High Court proceeded on the erroneous premises by observing that numberaction for blacklisting the respondent No.l companypany was taken.
1 questioning award of the companytract to respondent number 2.
It appears that subsequently on 3.1.2003 a fresh order, debarring the respondent number 1 companypany and its Director for a period of five years, has been passed.
1 companypany.
1 companypany and its Director for a period of five years.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court, inter alia, held that the Director of the Company and the Company itself are two separate legal entities and even if any unbecoming act was done by the Director, that should number stand in the way of the companytract being awarded to the respondent No.
Learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Contractor Registration Board keeping in view of the impugned judgment dated 12.7.2002.
Therefore, other tenderers were called for negotiations to lower the rates offered.
Liberty was also granted to the respondent No.l to file a suit for damages if it so thought appropriate.
1 Company being an incorporate body who acts through its Directors, when the act of a Director of the Company itself was found to be objectionable, attracting criminal action, there was numberhing wrong in the Appellant Authority deciding number to accept the tender offered by the respondent No.l Company.
The Delhi Development Authority herein after referred to as the DDA calls in question the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby it has held that the act of the appellant in number awarding companytract to the respondent No.
It appears that subsequently action was taken by the Contractor Registration Board in terms of the Rule 22.3 k of the Enlistment Rules of DDA.
On 25.10.2001 the Works Advisory Board decided that the tender of respondent No.
Though the companytract awarded to the second respondent was number nullified, it was held by the High Court that the first respondent who was deprived of its right was entitled to companyts to be paid by the appellant.
Show cause numberice was issued to respondent No.
On 8.11.2001, after companysideration of the lowered rates offered the work was awarded to respondent number 2 respondent No.
On 19.6.2001 Enquiry Officer submitted a report inter alia observing that Mr. V.K. Kapoors version was companyrect and that the allegations made by Mr. Ashok Sehgal appear to be in retaliation.
