SECON PRIVATE LIMITED vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 + W.P.(C) 7936/2020 SECON PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Mr. Pranav Pareek and Mr. Diwakar Awari, Advocates versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA.....Respondent Through: Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Varnit Vashistha, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By way of present Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of Office Circular No. NHAI/NH-4/Nalagampalli/2016-2017/115 dated 25.08.2020 issued by the respondent. Vide the impugned order, the respondent imposed the penalty of debarment upon the petitioner from engagement in the projects of the respondents either directly or indirectly for a period of 6 months along with penalty of Rs.8.57 lacs equivalent to 5% of the contract amount. 2. The petitioner was awarded the consultancy contract dated 29.11.2010 for preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for “Rehabilitation and up- gradation of NH-4 from Nalagampalli (Existing Km.171.590/ Design Km.172.00) to AP/Karnataka Border (Existing Km.216.912/ Design Km. 219.687) to four lane with paved shoulders (Design length = 47.687 Km) under NHDP-IV in the State of Andhra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7936/2020 Page 1 of 5 By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:23.04.2025 17:08:34 Pradesh on EPC mode”. As per the respondent, certain major deficiencies were observed in the services rendered by the petitioner. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 16.10.2019 was issued. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the impugned order of debarment and penalty came to be passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not a reasoned