Delhi High Court · 2025

W.P.(C) 9806/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~122 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9806/2025 and CM APPL.40993/2025 (Stay) SA INFRASTRUCTURE CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Prachi, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Mr. Rajeev Chaudhary and Ms. Saloni Singh, Advs. versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA.....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, SC and Mr. Devansh Malhotra, Adv. for NHAI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 14.07.2025 O R D E R CM APPLs. 40994/2025 (seeking permission to file lengthy list of dates and synopsis) and 40995/2025 (exemption from filing certified copies of orders/original documents and annexures) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Applications stand disposed of. 3. The present petition assails a communication / Show Cause Notice (SCN) bearing no. NHAI/AJ-RGBS-754A/Pkg-04/EPC/2024/E-200059 dated 02.07.2025 issued by the respondent to the petitioner. The same has been issued in the backdrop of the petitioner being appointed as ‘Authority’s Engineer’ for providing consultancy services with regard to the construction of 6-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway from km 99.000 to km 130.073 of Rajasthan/Gujarat Border to Santalpur Section of NH-754K as a W.P.(C) 9806/2025 and CM APPL.40993/2025 (Stay) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:53:22 W.P.(C) 9806/2025 Page 2 of 6 part of Amritsar-Jamnagar Economic Corridor in the State of Gujarat on EPC mode under Bharatmala Pariyojana (Phase-I). The said communication / SCN reads as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:53:22 W.P.(C) 9806/2025 Page 3 of 6 4. The grievance canvassed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the paragraph 4 of the aforesaid SCN virtually debars the petitioner even without awaiting the reply of the petitioner to the aforesaid SCN. 5. It is submitted that in essence, the petitioner has been condemned even without being given an opportunity to present its version of the factual position as regards the highlighted condition of the highway in question. Secondly, it is contended that the aforementioned paragraph 4 discloses no cogent reasons as to why was it necessary to suspend the petitioner with immediate effect without even awaiting the petitioner’s reply to the said SCN. It is submitted that this is conspicuous, considering that correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent (as well as the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:53:22 W.P.(C) 9806/2025 Page 4 of 6 concerned Contractor tasked with constructing the highway in question) has been going on since March, 2025 as regards the condition of the concerned highway in question. 6. It is submitted that since the petitioner has in effect been debarred without being given an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN and without even being heard, the same is in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, submits that the impugned action has been taken in the interest of public safety in view of the evident lapses on the part of the ‘Authority’s Engineer’ in taking preventive / remedial measures despite the deplorable condition of the highway in question. 8. A perusal of the impugned suspension order reveals that the same does not disclose any cogent reasons as to why the extreme step of suspending the petitioner has taken, without even awaiting the petitioner’s reply to the SCN. 9. Further, the action taken against the petitioner even though described as a ‘suspension’, is in the nature of a debarment, and ought to have been preceded by compliance with the principles of natural justice. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services (supra) as under:- “21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:53:22 W.P.(C) 9806/2025 Page 5 of 6 requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. 22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show-cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz: (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement. xxx 27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was incumbent on the part of the Department to state in the show-cause notice that the competent authority intended to impose such a penalty of blacklisting, so as to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the same. However, we may also add that even if it is not mentioned specifically but from the reading of the show-cause notice, it can be clearly inferred that such an action was proposed, that would fulfil this requirement. In the present case, however, reading of the show-cause notice does not suggest that noticee could find out that such an action could also be taken. We say so for the reasons that are recorded hereinafter. xxx 31. When it comes to the action of blacklisting which is termed as “civil death” it would be difficult to accept the proposition that without even putting the noticee to such a contemplated action and giving him a chance to show cause as to why such an action be not taken, final order can be passed blacklisting such a person only on the premise that this is one of the actions so stated in the provisions of NIT.” 10. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the suspension of the petitioner, as directed vide paragraph 4 of the aforesaid communication / This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2025 at 12:53:22 W.P.(C) 9806/2025 Page 6 of 6 SCN dated 02.07.2025, is put in abeyance. 11. With the consent of the petitioner, it is directed that a reply to the aforesaid SCN dated 02.07.2025 shall be submitted by the petitioner on or before Friday, i.e. 18.07.2025. Further, in case the respondent seeks to suspend the petitioner pending adjudication of the SCN, it shall be open for the respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in this regard. Needless to say, the same shall be subject to rights and remedies of the petitioner with regard thereto. 12. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner shall stand removed from the list of “CONSULTING FIRMS DEBARRED / BLACKLISTED IN NHAI WORKS” as depicted on the website of the respondent / NHAI and on INFRACON. The same shall, however, be subject to any further action that may be taken by the respondent pursuant to the directions contained hereinabove. 13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 14. Order dasti. SACHIN DATTA, J JULY 14, 2025/cl