Shri Akshay Jain vs Delhi Transco Ltd.

Gita Mittal, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the failure of the respondent to issue tender documents to him. The petitioner has asserted that he has been regularly awarded works by the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Electric Supply Undertaking, its successor the Delhi Vidyut Board and it has been submitted by the respondent as well. It is further submitted that no complaint however been communicated to the petitioner and there is no legal proceedings or litigation of any kind between the petitioner and the respondent. It is an admitted position that no show cause notice has also ever been issued to the petitioner by either the respondent or its successors in interest with regard to the execution of the contracts which were awarded to the petitioner.

This writ petition was necessitated inasmuch as, on request of the petitioner dated 10th April, 2006 and 27th June, 2006 for issuance of the notice inviting quotations whereby the petitioner had requested issuance of the documents in respect of two notices inviting quotations issued by the respondent, the same were refused. The petitioner has pointed out that the official had endorsed on the petitioner''s requests that the performance of the party was not satisfactory. This action of the respondent has been assailed as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and irrational.

Ms. Vaishalee Mehra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the respondent was justified in so acting in the matter inasmuch as the performance of the petitioner has not been up to the mark and that the petitioner has been able to manipulate contracts on account of relationship with certain employees of the organisation.

I have considered the rival contentions. It is well settled that the respondent No. 1, though incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act however the entire equity in the company is owned and held by the Government of NCT of Delhi. It is well settled that its actions are to be guided by fairness and its functions have to meet the tests on the touchstone of reasonableness. No material has been placed before this Court to substantiate that the petitioner had failed to perform any contract assigned to him. No notice to show cause in this behalf or complaint has been addressed by the respondent to the petitioner

It is well settled that even in matters relating to award of contracts the respondent cannot exercise its power arbitrarily. However such a decision has to be taken on the well settled principles which have been laid down by the courts. Certainly the petitioner cannot be deprived of consideration at the whim and fancy of an individual officer of the respondent. It is not the respondent''s case that the petitioner has been issued show cause notices or black listed after due process. In this background the petitioner was certainly entitled to the tender documents and to submit its quotations which was required to be considered in terms of the notice inviting quotations by the respondent. The respondent would consider the petitioner''s quotations and his eligibility in the light of the conditions imposed by them.

It has been pointed out that so far as the contracts in respect for which the petitioner had made the request by the letter dated 10th April, 2006 and 27th June, 2006 are concerned are long over. It is therefore directed that in case the petitioner applies for the issuance of appropriate documents pursuant to any notice inviting quotations the same shall be given to the petitioner.

Needless to say it shall always open to the respondent to take appropriate action as per the applicable rules and procedures in respect of the contracts which stand awarded to the petitioner in respect of any deficiency in execution of the work.

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

CM Nos. 10632/2006 & 12260/2006

In view of orders passed above these applications do not survive for adjudication and are disposed of.