CWP No. 18244 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18244 of 2010 Date of Decision: 7.10.2010 A.K. Sood Engineer & Contractor ....Petitioner. Versus Municipal Corporation and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 23.3.2010 debarring the petitioner from participating in tenders of the respondent- Corporation for one year. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it was allotted work of improving and developing of existing infrastructure by the Municipal Corporation and the said work was sublet to a different firm on account of unforeseen circumstances of the petitioner. The said subletting was under oral approval. The said sub lessee committed misappropriation and pilferage of material for which FIR was lodged and on that account itself, contract awarded to the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was debarred from participation for one year from 23.3.2010. Since no hearing was given to the petitioner, the petitioner filed CWP CWP No. 18244 of 2010 -2- No. 14503 of 2010 which was disposed of with a direction to give hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order. Thereafter, impugned order dated 16.9.2010 has been passed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Finding recorded in the impugned order is as under:- “i) It is admitted that M/s A.K. Sood Engineers & Contractors, Panchkula is a Govt. approved Agency who are allotted number of works after following the laid down procedure in this regard. But in the instant case, the Vigilance Department, UT seized a private truck at odd hours with pilfered cement bags on the intervening night of 20th and 21st March 2010 near Fun Republic, Manimajra, Chandigarh leading to registration of case in Police Station Vigilance, UT, Chandigarh under Sections 409, 421, 120-B, IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the P.C. Act 1988. The Vigilance Department on investigation found that the cement was being pilfered from the M.C. Store by the agency M/s Sarvpriya Building Products to whom the work pertaining to Beautification of Sector 17, Chandigarh was unauthorizedly sublet by M/s A.K. Sood Engineers & Contractors. Though M/s A.K. Sood Engineers & Contractors filed an application for subletting the work to M/s Sarvpriya Building Products but no approval was given in this regard by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. M/s A.K. CWP No. 18244 of 2010 -3- Sood Engineers & Contractors during the course of arguments has himself admitted that the work had been sublet to M/s Sarvpriya Building Products, H. No. 2032, Sector 48, Chandigarh which is a clear cut violation of Clause 21 of the agreement of the work i.e. Beautification of Sector 17, Chandigarh. Further, as per Clause 26(a) of the contract agreement, the contractor is required to store the cement in a dedicated store but in this case despite the cement being issued to M/s A.K. Sood Engineers & Contractors, part of the cement was stored in M.C. Store in violation of the Clause 26 of the contract agreement. The storage of cement in the M.C. can only be attributed to malafide reasons which subsequently got provide on seizure of the same by the Vigilance authorities. ii) As per the report of the Vigilance authorities Shri Harshwardan, Contractor of M/s Sarvpriya Building Products was travelling in the vehicle carrying the pilfered cement bags thereby proving direct involvement of M/s Sarvpriya Building Products in the theft of cement from the M.C. Store. Since M/s Sarvpriya Building Products was working at the behest of M/s A.K. Sood Engineer and Contractor, M/s A.K. Sood Engineer and Contractor cannot be absolved of the criminal liability in this case.” CWP No. 18244 of 2010 -4- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for wrongful acts of sub lessee. The sub lessee was inducted under oral approval and no objection was taken by the respondents to the working by the sub lessee. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Even if the sub lessee was inducted with the oral approval as stated, the petitioner could not be absolved of its responsibility for the wrongful acts of its sub lessee. The view taken in debarring the petitioner cannot be held to be perverse and cannot be interfered with only because a different view could also be taken. 7. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 7, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE