High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 6011/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BK SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure -XX communication dated 31.10.2012 b y which the IOCL furnished the information about the decision of the authority o f the IOCL to place it on holiday list and also removing it from the list of app roved contractors for a period of 3 years with effect from the date of the said communication. Prior to making the said communication the petitioner was issued with two show cause notices, one dated 28.2.2012 (Annexure-XV) and the other d ated 12.9.2012 (Annexure-XVII). As per the 1st show cause notice the petitioner had submitted forged work order and completion certificate as credentials with its letter under reference. By th e 2nd show cause notice it was alleged as follows :- (cid:28)Copy of Work Order No. PC/SG/287/07 of 10.03.2007 and copy of completion certif icate No. Ref. No. PC/SG/C(A)/192/2012 dated 16.4.2012 issued by M/S Purbanchal Cement Ltd. In your favour, which you have submitted along with your letter date d 23.04.202 addressed to GM(HR) IOCL, Guwahati Refinery. (cid:29) Both the show cause notices were replied to by the petitioner vide letters dated 5.9.2001 and 25.9.2012 (Annexure -XVI and XVIII). Apart from the allegation mad e in the aforementioned two show cause notices, further allegation has been made in respect of manipulation of records in annexing the documents to the writ pet ition. In this connection, the statements made in paragraphs-7, 10 and 11 may be referred to.
Legal Reasoning
In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit it has been categorically stated that th e Annexures-I and II documents were never produced by the petitioner before th e respondents and have been produced for the first time annexing the same with
Decision
the writ petition. In paragraph-10, it has been stated that vide the letter dated 9.4.2012 the peti tioner requested for 10 days time i.e. upto 19.4.2012 to submit the required sup porting documents in respect of the particular NIT. According to the respondents , the Annexures VI,VII and VIII annexed to counter affidavit were never submitt ed before the respondents. It has also been stated that responding to the parti cular letter there was no necessity for the petitioner to write three different letters. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that the letter dated 11.4.2012 stated to have been written to the respondent No.7 (A nnexure-VII to the writ petition), is apparently a manufactured document. In paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the bid offered by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of failure to meet the pre qualifying criteria. According to respondents, the petitioner had failed to subm it work order of similar nature and value thereof as required for being eligible in respect of the particular tender. The IOCL authority in reference to the aforesaid show cause notices and the repl ies thereto and the relevant documents came to the conscious decision to place t he petitioner on holiday list and to debar it from participating in any tender p rocess for 3 years. Mr Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the vigilance enquiry submits that it is a clear case of victimization of the petitioner as it was ins trumental in placing the matter before the vigilance. As regards the alleged for ged documents Mr Barua in reference to the reply affidavit filed by the petition er submits that different letters were written as per the requirement of the que ries made by the IOCL authority. Countering the above argument Mr Deka, learned standing counsel representing the IOCL submits that the Committee constituted to go into the matter in reference to show cause notices and the replies thereto having come to the definite findin gs that the petitioner was instrumental and involved in forging documents, there is nothing wrong in placing the petitioner in holiday list debarring from parti cipation in any tender process for 3 years. I have gone through the records produced by Mr Deka, learned standing counsel, I OCL. On perusal of the records it appears that a three member Committee was cons tituted to look into the matter. Upon a threadbare discussion of the entire mate rials on record and also taking note of the show cause replies furnished by the petitioner in response to the two show cause notices issued against it, the sai d Committee while making the recommendation for placing the petitioner in holid ay list also arrived at the following finding :- (cid:28)Further it is seen that M/S G.D Enterprise, with their technical bid against te nder No. GRCE11369, had submitted a copy of the completion certificate issued by M’S N.R. Transport (copy enclosed as Annexure-V). Contract Cell vide their lett er GRCE11369/CQ/5 dt 04/04/2012 (copy enclosed) as Annexure-VI) asked them to su bmit supporting documents in the form of copies of Work Order to meet the PQ cri teria. The contention of the party that in response to the advice of Contract ce ll he wanted to submit the competition certificate issued by M/S NR Transport is not acceptable, since the said document was already submitted by him along with technical bid an d therefore the question of submitting the same document once again to Contract cell does not arise. (cid:29) I have considered carefully the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record, including the file produced by Mr Deka. In consideration of the same I do not find any in firmity in the decision making process. It is not the case of any extraneous con sideration and or violation of statutory rules in placing the petitioner in holi day list. The decision in the impugned communication is for falsification and ma nufacturing of documents by the petitioner a glimpse of which can also be found in the writ petition. As noted above and also in the order dated 12.8.2013 passed by this Court, there is definite allegation of manufacturing documents by the petitioner and taking note of on the same, this Court by order dated 12.8.2013 granted liberty to the petitioner to rebut the same by filing affidavit-in -reply. Although the reply a ffidavit has been filed but the same does not deal with the specific averments m ade in different paragraphs of the counter affidavit. The reply affidavit is onl y by way of making general statements without specifically dealing with the spec ific averments made in the counter affidavit. For example in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit it is the specific plea of the respondents that the Annexures - I and II had never been produced by the petitioner before the respondents. Apa rt from the fact that the said paragraph-7 has not been specifically dealt with by the petitioner, in paragraph-5 of the reply affidavit the statement made is that the Annexure-I document was produced along with technical bid. Even if we a ccept the same, there is no mention about the Annexure-II document which accordi ng to the respondents, the petitioner had never produced. As regards the letter dated 9.4.2012, which the petitioner had submitted in resp onse to the letter dated 4.4.2012 of the IOCL, a copy of the same has been annex ed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-II. On perusal of the same it is seen th at the said letter dated 9.4.2012 in the letter pad of the petitioner was writte n by hand under the clear signature of the proprietor of M/S G.D. Enterprise, na mely, Ganesh Deka but on the other hand, in the writ petition the petitioner has annexed the Annexure-V letter dated 9.4.2013, which is a typed copy with the va riation of the original date 19.4.2012 to 12.4.2012. As against the hand writte n letter dated 9.4.2012 praying for 10 days time in Annexure-V letter dated 9.4. 2012 annexed to the writ petition the prayer shown to have been made is for 3 da ys. It is on these counts Mr Deka, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not only responsible in making falsification of document s before the authority of IOCL but also before this Court. Considering the matter in its entirety, I do not find any infirmity in the impug ned decision of the IOCL and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.