Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. The petitioner impugns the directions of the respondent in banning the petitioner for a period of three years from entering into any business dealings with the respondent-Sports Authority of India and all its Regional Centres / Sub-Centres /Academic Institutions / SAG / SYC Centres etc. under the administrative control of Sports Authority of India.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the banning order as well as the period of three years for which the petitioner has been banned.
3. It would be necessary at this stage to examine certain facts of the case. The respondent-Sports Authority of India issued Notice Inviting Tender on 24.01.2014 for supply of sports goods inter-alia 20 Billiard & Snooker tables and accessories. The condition of the tender was with regard to the domestic goods or goods of foreign origin located in India, the required delivery period was immediate i.e. within four days from the date of issuance of contract.
4. On 12.02.2014, Notification of award was issued wherein the petitioner was informed that the bid of the petitioner had been accepted, inter-alia, for supply of 20 Billiard & Snooker Tables. The delivery period in the notification of award was stated as under:-
"(i). Stores to be delivered to the respective consignees within 04 days from the date of receipt of this Notification of Award i.e. latest by 17.02.2014 positively."
5. The contract agreement dated 12.02.2014 was issued to the petitioner in continuation of the Notification of award dated 12.02.2014. The delivery schedule mentioned in the contract agreement was "within 04 days from date of receipt of Notification of Award".
6. On 13.02.2014, the petitioner requested for alteration in the delivery schedule from 04 days to 40 to 60 days. On 17.02.2014 the respondent-Sports Authority of India issued a letter to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to return a copy of the contract agreement and Notification of Award duly signed and stamped in token of their acceptance of the same and also to furnish the performance security for Rs. 2,42,000/-. The respondent while informing the petitioner that stores had to be delivered latest by 17.02.2014 positively required the petitioner to immediately intimate the progress of supply made till date. Admittedly, no supplies were made till 17.02.2014.
7. On 21.02.2014, the petitioner offered to supply five Billiard tables. The respondent did not accept the offer. On 22.04.2014, the petitioner informed the respondent that due to bad weather/heavy rains in Meerut, Delhi and nearby places, the polishing work could not be done due to cold weather and moisture in the temperature. Accordingly, it was informed that first installment of 5 Billiard tables was ready for delivery. The offer of delivery was not accepted by the respondents.
8. By letter dated 03.04.2014, the respondent informed the petitioner that the contracts stood terminated on account of breaches by the petitioner and further the petitioner was restrained from entering into any business dealings with Sports Authority of India and all its Regional Centres / Sub-Centres / Academic Institutions / SAG / SYC Centres etc. under the administrative control of Sports Authority of India for three years from the date of issue of the letter.
9. The petitioner impugned the letter dated 03.04.2014 by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3180/2014. On 23.05.2014, the Division Bench was informed that a decision had been taken by the respondent on 22.05.2014 thereby withdrawing the contents of paragraph 5 of impugned letter dated 03.04.2014 whereby the petitioner had been restrained from entering into any business dealings with the Sports Authority of India for three years. The decision taken by the Respondents on 22.05.2014 was without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to take appropriate action after giving a show c........