JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This intra-Court appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2013, by which he has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as an opportunity was given to the appellants, who were the petitioners before learned Single Judge, before passing the impugned order, by which the Bid/Proposal, submitted by the petitioners for selection of an Independent Engineer for Jaipur Rind Road Project, was rejected; the agency was debarred for six months from participating in the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur(JDA), and the bid security of the agency submitted along with the Bid/Proposal, was forfeited. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to this Special Appeal, are that the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, decided for six laning of Jaipur Ring Road from Ajmer Road to Agra Road section on Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Transfer(DBFOT) Toll basis. The project for a length of approximately 47 kms., is estimated with project cost of Rs.890 crores, and assignment period of 30 months. The JDA was appointed as the Nodal Agency for the execution of the Project. 4. The JDA issued a Request for Proposal(RFP) inviting proposals for engaging an Independent Engineer(IE) Firm in July, 2011, on the basis of the International Competitive Bidding. The petitioner-Company filed their bid, which could not be finalized. The JDA issued a revised tender, vide Request for Proposal on 28.11.2011, with last extended date for submission of the bids, to be 09.01.2012. 5. The petitioner-Company formed a Joint Venture with M/s Nicholas O' Dwyer, vide an agreement dated 07.01.2012, in which the petitioner-Company was designated as Lead Member of the J.V., and a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of one Shri Saurav Shekhar, to do all the necessary acts for submission of the bid. One of the employees of the petitioner-Company was required to submit the same to the Office of the JDA. The JV Company filed its bid along with all supporting documents on 09.01.2012, with requisite Bank Guarantee of Rs.35,60,000/-, as per the provisions of Clause 1.12 of the Request for Proposal, valid upto 06.07.2012. 6. It is submitted that after filing of the bid, the staff members of the petitioner-Company received some unknown calls, inquiring about their consent and other details. 6. It is submitted that after filing of the bid, the staff members of the petitioner-Company received some unknown calls, inquiring about their consent and other details. The petitioner-Company sent a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Ring Road Project, JDA on 07.06.2012, apprising him of the facts, and further intimation of apprehension regarding one Shri Nitin Jain, who was earlier the General Manager of the National Highways Authority of India(NHAI), and was terminated from the service on the charges of corruption. The petitioner-Company made a complaint that Shri Nitin Jain was trying to influence the tender process. The respondents however maintained silence on the complaint of the petitioner, and did not take any steps. The validity of the bid was to expire on 06.07.2012. The respondents vide communication dated 31.07.2012, requested the petitioner-Company to extend the bid period and the bank guarantee, which was extended by the petitioner-Company upto 31.10.2012, vide its letter dated 07.08.2012. 7. On 13.10.2012, the petitioner-Company received a letter dated 11.10.2012 from the respondents, whereby for the first time, it was intimated to the Company that the document i.e. copy of the certificate dated 06.01.2012, issued by the Project Director, PIU, NHAI, Udaipur, submitted by the petitioner, was a forged document, and that the act of the petitioner comes under the 'fraudulent practice'. The petitioner-Company was required to submit its reply within three days. There were three documents, which were enclosed along with the letter dated 11.10.2012, the details of which are as follows:- “a. Letter (No.2401) dated 14.09.2012 issued by Project Director, NHAI, in reply to a letter (No.244) of Respondent Authority sent on 13.09.2012. b. Copy of the allegedly false document available on the record of JDA and apparently, enclosed by JDA along with its letter dated 13.09.2012. c. True copy of the Certificate/letter no. NHAI/UDR/CPCS/ 2012/39 dated 06.01.2012 attested by NHAI.” 8. On 15.10.2012, the petitioner-Company was served with a notice to show cause as to why his bid security may not be forfeited, to which the petitioner-Company replied/clarified, vide its letter dated 18.10.2012, that the alleged forged certificate dated 06.01.2012, issued by the Project Director, NHAI, was never submitted by the petitioner- Company. In fact, the said forged document did not bear stamp or signature of the authorized signatory of the petitioner-Company, which was a mandatory requirement, as per the conditions prescribed in the RFP. 9. In fact, the said forged document did not bear stamp or signature of the authorized signatory of the petitioner-Company, which was a mandatory requirement, as per the conditions prescribed in the RFP. 9. By the impugned order dated 19.10.2012, the Superintending Engineer(RRP), Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, rejected the Bid/Proposal of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had adopted fraudulent practice in submitting the bid document in JDA, Jaipur, for selection of an Independent Engineer for Jaipur Ring Road Project. The Office Order dated 19.10.2012 reads as follows:- “JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY No. JDA/RRP/2012/D-275 Date:19-10-2012 Office Order M/s SA Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in JV with Nicholas O' Dwyer & Company Limited has adopted fraudulent practice in submitting the bid document in Jaipur Development Authority for selection of Independent Engineer (IE) for Jaipur Ring Road Project. The agency has also withdrawn its proposal during the validity period of the bid/proposal. Following decisions have been taken: 1. The Big/Proposal submitted by the agency for Jaipur Ring Road Project for selection of Independent Engineer has been rejected. 2. The Agency has been debarred hence forth for six months for participating in Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. 3. The bid security of the agency submitted along with the bid/ proposal is forfeited. This bears the approval of Jaipur Development Commissioner. Sd/- Superintending Engineer(RRP) Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.” 10. It was pleaded and submitted before learned Single Judge that the impugned order dated 19.10.2012, is based upon a pseudonymous complaint filed by one Shri Sanjay Pandey, whose identity and address are bogus. Neither the copy of the complaint was given, nor any clarification was sought from the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The copies of the impugned order were sent to the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd., and the National Highway Authority of India, raising aspersions on the credibility of the bid of the petitioner-Company, lowering its reputation, and maligning the name of the petitioner-Company, which ultimately will ruin their business. 11. The copies of the impugned order were sent to the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd., and the National Highway Authority of India, raising aspersions on the credibility of the bid of the petitioner-Company, lowering its reputation, and maligning the name of the petitioner-Company, which ultimately will ruin their business. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Single Judge was of the view that since the show cause notice and opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner-Company before passing the impugned order, and an adequate enquiry was made by the respondents to verify the genuineness of the certificate, the action of the respondents cannot be said to have suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and unfairness, inasmuch as there was sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice, and thus, the judgments cited by the petitioner were distinguishable, and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the forged document submitted by the alleged exemployee of the petitioner-Company, who was terminated from the service, has been made the basis of making an enquiry. The respondents did not care to find out whether the document which was submitted, was a genuine document, and also did not attempt to find out as to how the complainant got the copy of the certificate dated 06.01.2012, issued by the Project Director, NHAI, which was submitted in bounded bid document at page 596. Without comparing the alleged forged document with the original document, it was sent to the NHAI for verification. Since the document given by the complainant was incomplete and forged document, the NHAI refuted the document, to have been issued by their Project Director. The NHAI did not commit any error in refuting the document, inasmuch as the document submitted with the complaint, was an incomplete and forged document. 13. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court summoned the original record from the JDA. Counsel appearing for the JDA took number of adjournments, to produce the original record. As the Office of the JDA is at the distance of hardly 1 km. 13. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court summoned the original record from the JDA. Counsel appearing for the JDA took number of adjournments, to produce the original record. As the Office of the JDA is at the distance of hardly 1 km. from the High Court, in the circumstances, on 24.03.2015, we passed the order as follows:- “The matter is pending in the Court since last three years, during which several opportunities have been given to the Jaipur Development Authority(JDA), to produce the original record, to verify whether the documents submitted with the complaint, are the same, which were filed by the appellant/petitioner at page Nos.596 and 624 of the bid document. It is submitted that the JDA, with malafide intentions and for oblique purposes, rejected the bid/proposal, submitted by the petitioner for selection as an independent Engineer for Jaipur Ring Road, and also debarred the agency for six months from participating in the JDA as well as forfeited the bid security, without even looking into the documents enclosed by the petitioner at page Nos.596 and 624. The documents submitted by the complainant, sent for verification, were treated to be the documents submitted by the petitioner. This Court is seized of the matter and has given ample opportunities to the JDA, to produce the original record including the documents at page Nos.596 and 624, submitted by the petitioner. The JDA, for one reason or other, has been avoiding production of the original record, and hearing of the matter. Since the Office of the JDA is situate close to the High Court, we direct the JDA, to produce the original record in the Court tomorrow. Put up tomorrow i.e. 25.03.2015, as a first case, in the Supplementary Cause List.” 14. Today, when the matter was taken up, original bid document submitted by M/s SA Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd.- the appellant, was produced in the Court, and in which at page Nos.596 and 624, the documents submitted by the appellant, were enclosed in a bounded volume. These documents, as were submitted by the appellant, were never sent to the NHAI for verification. The comparison of these two documents would show that the second line and part of third line is missing in the document, annexed with the complaint, which was sent for verification to the NHAI. These documents, as were submitted by the appellant, were never sent to the NHAI for verification. The comparison of these two documents would show that the second line and part of third line is missing in the document, annexed with the complaint, which was sent for verification to the NHAI. In order to appreciate the issue, the contents of the bid document at Page Nos.596 and 624, are quoted as below:- ^^Hkkjrh; jk”Vªh; jktekxZ izkf/kdj.k ¼lM+d ifjogu vkSj jktekxZ ea=ky;½ National Highways Authority of India (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) ifj;kstuk dk;kZUo;u bZdkbZ 10&,] iapoVh] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT 10-A, PANCHAWATI, UDAIPUR (Rajasthan)-313001 nwjHkk”k@QSDl % ¼91½ 0294&2412566 Tele/Fax: (91) 0294-2428094 E-mail: uda@nhai.org fnukad % Date 06.01.2012 lanHkZ Ref. No. NHAI/UDR/CPCS/2012/39 TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN M/s. CPCS UPHAM Corporation, Bangkok, (presently Upham International Corporation) Joint Venture with Thai Engineering Consultants Co. Ltd. Thailand and Mahendra Raj Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for preparation of Alignment Option Study, Detailed Project Report and Construction Supervision of 4/6 Lane Access Controlled Chittorgarh Bypass from Km 159/00 of NH-79 to Km 213/000 of NH-76 in the State of Rajasthan. The Project involves 4/6 lane divided carriageway starting from Km 159/000 to Km 168/500 of NH-79 and then follows a new alignment and joins at Km 213/000 of NH-76, having an aggregate length of 29.600 Kilometers. The Project Coordinating Consultant has supervised 1 major Bridge (length=200 meters with span arrangement 36x5), 1 ROB (length = 33 meters single span),1 Flyover (length = 49 meters, Span arrangement 2 x 13.00 + 1x23 Mtrs), 2 Nos of Minor Bridges, 20 Nos of Underpass, 48 Nos of Culverts in the entire Project length. The Project work has been substantially completed on 31st October, 2009. Sd/- (H.K. BHATT) PROJECT DIRECTOR” 15. In order to compare the original document with the document, which was submitted by the complainant, the contents of the document submitted by the complainant are quoted as below:- ^^Hkkjrh; jk”Vªh; jktekxZ izkf/kdj.k ¼lM+d ifjogu vkSj jktekxZ ea=ky;½ National Highways Authority of India (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) ifj;kstuk dk;kZUo;u bZdkbZ 10&,] iapoVh] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT 10-A, PANCHAWATI, UDAIPUR (Rajasthan)-313001 nwjHkk”k@QSDl % ¼91½ 0294&2412566 Tele/Fax: (91) 0294-2428094 E-mail: uda@nhai.org fnukad % Date 06.01.2012 lanHkZ Ref. No. NHAI/UDR/CPCS/2012/39 TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN M/s. CPCS UPHAM Corporation, Bangkok, (presently Upham International Corporation) Joint Venture with Thai Engineering Consultants Co. No. NHAI/UDR/CPCS/2012/39 TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN M/s. CPCS UPHAM Corporation, Bangkok, (presently Upham International Corporation) Joint Venture with Thai Engineering Consultants Co. Ltd. Thailand and Mahendra Raj Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for preparation of Alignment Option Study, Detailed Project Report and Construction Supervision of 4/6 Lane Access Controlled Chittorgarh Bypass from Km 159/00 of NH-79 to Km 213/000 of NH-76 in the State of Rajasthan. The Project involves 4/6 lane divided carriageway starting from Km 159/000 to Km 168/500 of NH-79 and then follows a new alignment and joins at Km 213/000 of NH-76, having an aggregate length of 29.600 Kilometers. The Project Coordinating Consultant has supervised 1 major Bridge (length=200 meters with span arrangement 36x5), 1 ROB (length = 33 meters single span),1 Flyover (length = 49 meters, Span arrangement 2 x 13.00 + 1x23 Mtrs), 2 Nos of Minor Bridges, 20 Nos of Underpass, 48 Nos of Culverts in the entire Project length. The Project work has been substantially completed on 31st October, 2009. Sd/- (H.K. BHATT) PROJECT DIRECTOR” 16. The comparison of the original document with the document submitted by the complainant, would show that the entire second line and part of third line upto the word “New Delhi” is missing, and that new paragraph has begun in the document, annexed with the complaint, with the words “Project Report”. 17. The comparison of these two documents, would clearly demonstrate that someone, with an intention to harm the interest of the appellant, had made a complaint along with the forged document. The competent authority in the JDA did not make any attempt to compare the two documents, and sent the document, which was annexed with the complaint, for verification to the NHAI, and drew a conclusion that the appellant had submitted a forged document, which amounts to 'fraudulent practice”. 18. We are distressed to observe that the reply given by the appellant to the show cause notice, was not considered at all. 18. We are distressed to observe that the reply given by the appellant to the show cause notice, was not considered at all. The appellant had explained in his reply, in detail, that the document submitted by it was a correct document, and that there were no misleading facts given in the bid document, inasmuch as the synopsis of the documents in the bid document, clearly disclosed that the appellant in the work of Consultancy Services for Alignment Option Study and Detailed Project Report for 4 laning of 29.6 Kms of Chittorgarh Bypass in the State of Rajathan (Greenfield Project), was the Lead Consultant, and not the Solo Consultant. 19. The second line and part of third line was obliterated, in order to establish that the appellant was the Solo Consultant in the construction supervision of 4/6 Lane Access Controlled Chittorgarh Bypass. The appellant did not try to mislead the JDA, and had submitted the synopsis with the original documents, to establish the experience in the project as a Lead Consultant, and not the Solo Consultant. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the JDA states that due care was taken to send the document, annexed with the complaint, to the NHAI for verification, and that on receipt of the information from NHAI that the document is forged, a show cause notice was given to the appellant. He has however not been able to explain as to why the explanation given by the appellant in the reply to show cause notice, was not considered, and that even the reference was not made to it in the impugned order. He has also not been able to explain as to why the documents, which were submitted by the appellant along with the bid document at Page Nos.596 and 624, were not sent for verification. If there was any doubt, both the documents, namely the document submitted by the complainant and the document submitted by the appellant, should have been sent for verification to the NHAI. 21. We further find that learned Single Judge has grossly erred in law in observing that since the show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant, the principles of natural justice were complied with, and that was the only requirement before passing the order. 21. We further find that learned Single Judge has grossly erred in law in observing that since the show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant, the principles of natural justice were complied with, and that was the only requirement before passing the order. He did not look into the merits of the case, nor considered the contentions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in arriving at a conclusion that having served the principles of natural justice, the impugned order cannot be assailed, and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. 22. On the aforesaid observations, and having perused the original record, we find that the JDA has acted illegally and arbitrarily, and rejected the Bid/Proposal submitted by the agency, debarred the agency for a period for six months from participating in the JDA, Jaipur, and forfeited the bid security, and thus, the order dated 19.10.2012, in the light of the explanation given by the appellant, is liable to be set aside. 23. At this stage, we may also point out that the Project of Ring Road is at the Project Cost of Rs.890 crores, and the appointment of the Independent Engineer, who has to supervise the work performed by the Concessionare, has been put to doubt. We are of the confident view that a deliberate attempt was made to remove the appellant from competing and participating in the International Bidding for engaging an Independent Engineer, and it may be possible that a convenient Independent Engineer has been appointed by the JDA, in league with the Concessionare. We, however, cannot express any opinion on the issue, as on the material available on record, no such findings can be recorded. We however observe that this matter should not be left by just allowing the Special Appeal, but a larger enquiry should be made into the matter, to find out whether the selection of the Independent Engineer was made in fair and transparent manner, and which had no connection with the Concessionare. 24. In the circumstances, we are of the view, and it was agreed upon by learned counsel appearing for the JDA, that a larger enquiry should be made into the matter by an Officer, who is not directly associated with the JDA. 25. 24. In the circumstances, we are of the view, and it was agreed upon by learned counsel appearing for the JDA, that a larger enquiry should be made into the matter by an Officer, who is not directly associated with the JDA. 25. We, therefore, direct that the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan, will appoint an Enquiry Committee, headed by an Officer of the rank of Principal Secretary, of an impeccable reputation, to enquire into the matter, and to submit his report within a period of three months. We are passing this order, to maintain probity and to clear all the shadow of doubts, which have been created over the bidding process of the selection of an Independent Engineer to supervise the work of the Concessionare. 26. We may notice here, with some distress, that in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant had withdrawn his bid on 01.10.2012. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the bid was withdrawn, considering the delay caused in the finalization of the bidding process, and the doubts expressed on the integrity of the appellant-Company. It is submitted that it was not possible for the appellants, in view of the procedure adopted by the JDA, which was highly doubtful and was legged with an oblique motive, to continue to participate in the bidding process. 27. The Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of learned Single Judge, dated 13.02.2013, and the order dated 19.10.2012, passed by the Superintending Engineer(RRP), Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, are set aside. Since the appellants had withdrawn from the bidding process, and that an Independent Engineer has been appointed, who is supervising the work of Ring Road Project, the relief of cancelling the biding process, or allowing the appellants to participate in the JDA, cannot be awarded. The order, however, debarring the agency for a period of six months from participating in the JDA, Jaipur, is aside, with further direction that the entire amount of bid security of Rs.35,60,000/-, forfeited by the JDA, shall be returned to the appellant with compound interest, calculated @ 12% per annum, within a period of one month. 28. Considering the fact that the appellant was compelled to file the writ petition and thereafter this Special Appeal and entering into the litigation, a cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. 28. Considering the fact that the appellant was compelled to file the writ petition and thereafter this Special Appeal and entering into the litigation, a cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs), is allowed to be paid by the JDA to the appellant, as the cost of litigation and the expenses, which the appellant has incurred in prosecuting the proceedings. 29. The report of the enquiry, as directed by us, will be submitted by the concerned Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, to the Registrar General of this Court within three months, within which the enquiry must be completed. 30. Considering the special facts and circumstances of the present case, in which the reputation of the appellant is likely to suffer, and which may affect the business/working of the firm, we direct the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, to send a letter of apology to the appellant, within a period of one month from today.