PRACHAR COMMUNICATION LIMITED Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-189
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 04,2018

Prachar Communication Limited Appellant
VERSUS
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. - (1.)The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2016 (hereafter "the SCN") issued by the respondent (hereafter "BSNL") and the order dated 18.07.2016 (hereafter "the impugned order") passed by the BSNL blacklisting the petitioner for a period of five years from the date of the said order.
(2.)The petitioner has assailed the impugned order principally on the ground that it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner alleges that it was not afforded any meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations on the basis of which the petitioner has been blacklisted. The petitioner claims that the SCN falls short of the requisite standards, as it neither provides any particulars of the allegations nor puts the petitioner to notice of the proposed action to blacklist it.
(3.)Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the aforesaid controversy are as under:-
3.1 On 11.07.2008, BSNL issued an "Expression of Interest for Empanelment of Advertising Agencies for BSNL Corporate Office" (hereafter "EOI"). In terms of the EOI, BSNL had invited bids from eligible bidders for rendering services relating to creative designing; media planning; and PR activities. The petitioner submitted its bid pursuant to the EOI. The said bid was accepted, and on 26.12.2008, BSNL issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the petitioner.

3.2 Thereafter, on 05.06.2009, the parties entered into an Agreement (hereafter "Empanelment Agreement") in terms of which the petitioner was required to provide the specified service that is, media planning; media buying and public relation services on the terms as agreed between the parties. The Empanelment Agreement was valid for a term of two years with an option of further extension for a period of one year. It was specifically agreed between the parties that the petitioner's performance would be reviewed in every three months and in the event its performance was found to be unsatisfactory, BSNL would have the right to terminate the Empanelment Agreement. Admittedly, there were no complaints against the petitioner during the term of the Empanelment Agreement and the petitioner's performance was not found dissatisfactory.

3.3 It is stated that almost five years after the term of the Empanelment Agreement had expired, BSNL issued the SCN, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had "committed irregularities in the matter of empanelment of advertising agency" during the years 2008- 10 and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioner.

3.4 The petitioner responded to the SCN by a letter dated 17.06.2016, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was a reputed agency and was empanelled with several public sector undertakings. The petitioner asserted that it had filed an application for being empanelled as an Advertising Agency along with the necessary documents and had been empanelled at the discretion of BSNL. It also claimed that its financial bid was below the rate card of various media channels and publications and BSNL had benefited from the competitive rates offered by the petitioner.

3.5 On 18.07.2016, BSNL passed the impugned order debarring the petitioner from any business dealing with BSNL for a period of five years from the date of the impugned order.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.