AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
By the present petition, the petitioner essentially challenges the letter dated 09.07.2026 (hereafter ‘impugned letter’) issued by Respondent No. 2 pursuant to which the Tripartite Memorandum of Agreement dated 23.09.2025 executed between Respondent No. 2, 3 and the petitioner for the revamping and operation of ‘Elderline’ – National Helpline for the Senior Citizens under the Atal Vayo Abhyuday Yojana was unilaterally terminated.
Briefly, the Tripartite Memorandum of Agreement was executed for the revamping and operation of the national helpline for Senior Citizens. The letter of Intent was issued by Respondent No. 2 in this regard on 19.07.2025 and the same was duly accepted by the petitioner on 22.07.2025. Thereafter, in furtherance of the project implementation, the petitioner floated GeM Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6501323, also bearing NIT No. TCIL/78/2025/DT/Elderline, on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal for the selection of a suitable back-end implementation partner/service provider to assist in the execution and operationalization of the project in accordance with the prescribed framework. Out of the four bids received, M/s Vision Plus Security Control Ltd. was declared the successful bidder and was subsequently awarded the GeM Contract on 03.11.2025. It is the case of the respondents that there were certain discrepancies in the selection of a suitable back-end implementation partner/service provider on the part of the petitioner.
Initially, a termination letter dated 24.02.2026 was issued by the respondent authorities, and the same was set aside by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P. (C) 4622/2026 with liberty to the respondents to take fresh action in accordance with law. Thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by the impugned letter, another termination letter was issued by Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter has been issued in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain its position. It has been argued that the respondents have alleged certain discrepancies in the selection of the backend partners and certain service providers, however, no specific show cause setting out the precise nature of the alleged irregularities or their particulars thereof was ever provided to the petitioner.
She submits that merely calling the petitioner for certain meetings and affording an opportunity to make some submissions without disclosing the precise and specific allegations required to be answered would not constitute a meaningful opportunity of hearing.
It is further pointed out that the earlier termination of the very same agreement had been set aside by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P. (C) 4622/2026 with liberty to the respondents to take fresh action in accordance with law. She submits that on that occasion as well, the termination was challenged on the ground of violations of principles of natural justice. She submits that despite the aforesaid directions, the respondents have again proceeded to terminate the Tripartite Memorandum of Agreement without curing the fundamental procedural infirmity. She consequently prays that the impugned letter be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned ASG submits that in compliance with the directions of this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P. (C) 4622/2026, the department afforded hearings to the petitioner to explain the discrepancies, and upon finding the explanation to be unsatisfactory and inadequate, the impugned letter was issued.
Having taken note of the rival contentions of the parties, undisputedly the earlier termination of the Tripartite Memorandum of Agreement vide order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P. (C) 4622/2026 was set aside by this Court with liberty to the respondents to take fresh action in accordance with law. While doing so, this Court had categorically noted that allegations of serious misconduct, misrepresentation, negligence could not have been determined without fulfilling the requirements of natural justice.
At this juncture, while the impugned letter indicates that the same is issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.04.2026 and it is not disputed by the petitioner that the department had afforded hearing to the petitioner to explain the discrepancies observed in the selection process of the Backend Partners and Service Providers, the requirement of natural justice in the opinion of this Court is not satisfied merely by providing an opportunity to appear before the authority or to make general submissions. The affected party ought to be made aware of the specific case sought to be made against it including the specific allegations and the material on which the proposed adverse action is founded so as to enable the affected party to meaningfully and effectively respond to the same.
Even the impugned letter though refers to certain discrepancies in the selection of the backend partners and service providers and relies upon the pendency of a vigilance enquiry, it does not set out with specificity the particular discrepancies or irregularities attributed to the petitioner nor does it indicate the basis on which the explanation furnished by the petitioner was found to be inadequate. Even the email communication dated 28.06.2026 though alleges procedural deviations in the tender floated by the petitioner for selection of the backend partner, the exact deviation alleged against the petitioner appears to be unclear.
In the considered view of this Court thus, the hearing afforded to the petitioner in the present case only appears to be an empty formality.
In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be reconsidered by the competent authority after following due process.
In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned letter is set aside and the competent authority is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner setting out the precise allegations and discrepancies alleged in the selection of the backend partners and service providers, the materials and documents proposed to be relied upon including the relevant material pertaining to the vigilance enquiry to the extent relied upon by the authority.
The petitioner shall be afforded with a reasonable time to submit its response along with the supporting documents. The respondents shall also afford the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing before taking any final decision and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and all such issues are left open for consideration by the competent authority.
The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.