Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 633 (GUJ)

DHIRAJLAL NAGJIBHAI GORASIYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-07-28

J.B.PARDIWALA, VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2021
ORDER : J.B.PARDIWALA, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- 22(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order by the respondent of blacklisting the petitioner vide communication dated February 22, 2019. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent dated 17.12.2018, whereby the respondent had directed to withhold the payments of the petitioner. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order passed by the respondent of blacklisting the petitioner vide communication dated February 22, 2019 and the actions of the respondents to withhold the payments of the petitioner dated 17.12.2018. (D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper. 2. The facts of this case are very gross. Prima-facie, it appears to be a case of a large scale fraud. 3. The writ-applicant is in the business of construction. The writ-applicant is a Proprietor of a Proprietory Concern running in the name of M/s. Maruti Construction Company. The respondent no.6 could be said to be a friend or an associate of the writ-applicant. 4. The writ-applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent – Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited dated 22nd February 2019. The order reads thus:- O.W. No.Mu.I./GuNi/Debar/52 Date: 22/02/2019 To, Maruti Construction, A-5 C, Sardar Mall, Second floor, Beside Diamond Mill, Nikol gaam road, post-Thakkarnagar Ahmedabad-382350. Subject: To debar the agencies which received irregular payment for the work under Executive Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Division no.2/1, Dhrangadhra, from the work going on under Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. Reference: (1) O.W. No.CPC/ UGPL/ SM/ 2016/ 1027/ Part-5, dated 03/03/2017 of Deputy General Manager(CPC), SSNNL, Gandhinagar. (2) Letter No.ME/ SSN/ PB/ Camp-2/ Gandhinagar, dated 18/02/2019 of Chief Engineer, SBC, Rajkot. (3) O.W. No.SSNNL/The Manager(CAD)/SBC/Internal Audit/47, dated 28/12/2018 of the office of the Manager(CAD), SSNNL, Gandhinagar. Reference: (1) O.W. No.CPC/ UGPL/ SM/ 2016/ 1027/ Part-5, dated 03/03/2017 of Deputy General Manager(CPC), SSNNL, Gandhinagar. (2) Letter No.ME/ SSN/ PB/ Camp-2/ Gandhinagar, dated 18/02/2019 of Chief Engineer, SBC, Rajkot. (3) O.W. No.SSNNL/The Manager(CAD)/SBC/Internal Audit/47, dated 28/12/2018 of the office of the Manager(CAD), SSNNL, Gandhinagar. PREFACE: (1) You were assigned construction work for UGPL sub-minor in the command area of Sardar Sarovar scheme by the letter (1) under reference, on condition to complete the said work in accordance with the conditions, provisions and specifications of the tender. (2) High level inspection has been conducted regarding the UGPL work going on under Executive Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Division no.2/1, Dhrangadhra. During primary investigation, it was found that in collusion with regional offices, you have received irregular payment of about Rs.2.47 Crores for the work assigned to you under the said office. (3) The difference amount has not been refunded by you in spite of intimation from regional office. ORDER:- After careful consideration, you are debarred from the work going on under SSNNL. Sd/- (illegible) Chief Engineer (G.N.) SSNNL, Gandhinagar 5. Prior to the passing of the impugned order referred to above, a notice was issued by the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited to the writ-applicant dated 18th February 2019. The notice reads thus:- Outward No. Sau.Sha.N.Vi.No.2/1/PB Date:18/02/2019 To, Maruti Construction, Ahmedabad A-5 C, Sardar Mall, Second Floor, Near Diamond Mill, Nikol Village Road, Po. Thakkar Nagar, Ahmedabad-382350 Mo.9913588188, 9924688188 Other office: 202 to 209, Vishala Supreme, 2nd floor, Torrent Sub-station, Sardar Patel Ring Road, Nikol, Ahmedabad-380049 Mo.9924688188 Subject : To blacklist the agency under control of Office of the Executive Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Division No.2/1, Dhrangadhra for receiving irregular payment. Reference: Registration No.AA Class-AB/TC/Ren/AA/129 of 2018 dt.30/1/2018 up to dt.31/12/2020. Registration Authority - Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Ahmedabad. With reference to the subject noted above, it is to inform that your agency has received the payment irregularly in the work of UGPL system of sub-minors in Chak area being operated by Office of the Executive Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Division No.2/1, Dhrangadhra. In this connection, you are hereby directed to give an explanation within 3 days as to why registration of your agency under reference should not be put into the blacklist. Note that in case of failing to do so, a proposal to blacklist the registration number under reference will be sent to the registry authority. In this connection, you are hereby directed to give an explanation within 3 days as to why registration of your agency under reference should not be put into the blacklist. Note that in case of failing to do so, a proposal to blacklist the registration number under reference will be sent to the registry authority. Sd/- (Illegible) Executive Engineer Saurashtra Branch Canal Division No.2/1, Dhrangadhra Copy forwarded to- (for information and necessary action) 1. The Chief Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal, Rajkot. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Circle No.4, Limbdi 6. To the aforesaid notice dated 18th February 2019, the following reply was given dated 26th February 2019 by the writ-applicant. No. Maruti/2018-19/SSNNL/05 26/02/2019 To, The Executive Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Department No.2/1, Narmada Colony, Bawari Road, Dhrangdhra – 363310. Subject : To blacklist the agency under the office of Executive Engineer, Saurashtra Branch Canal Department No.2/1, Dhrangdhra receiving irregular payment. Reference: (1) Your letter vide Outward No. SBCDNo.2/1/PB/243 dated 18/02/2019, received on 25/02/2019. Respected Sir, Vide a letter under reference, it has been stated that irregular payment has been received by us for the work of sub-minor UGPL chak being carried out under your office and an explanation is sought within 3 days for blacklisting the registration. In this regard, we submit our explanation as below. (1) The Maruti Construction Company had entrusted the whole work of the order received from you to the R.K. Infra. (Bhavesh Kevdaiya) with accountability. The copy of the agreement and the order is submitted herewith. (2) The amount credited by your office as the advance bill had been deposited by us in the account of the R.K. Infra. As per the agreement. However, the R.K. Infra. informed us after one month that since the work assigned by your office has been canceled, the payment made by you as advance bill is to be paid back. Therefore, the R.K. Infra. returned the amount of the bill in our account as per the agreement and the same amount has been paid back by us to your office (Corporation) on 04/12/2018. We have not received any letter of irregularity or measurement book of bill or a letter to pay back the money from the Corporation. Despite that, we have paid back the amount received as the advance in the interest of the Corporation. (3) Rs. We have not received any letter of irregularity or measurement book of bill or a letter to pay back the money from the Corporation. Despite that, we have paid back the amount received as the advance in the interest of the Corporation. (3) Rs. 2,47,30,228/- have been deposited in the account of Maruti Construction Ahmedabad. We have deposited this amount in the Account No – 56100001142 (IFSC CODE : SBIN0060100) of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. on 04/12/2018. Further, we have also given an undertaking that on receipt of the amount of GST and TDS for this work, we are bound to pay back the same to the Department. This undertaking has been given in the good faith only for maintaining good relationship with the Government. (4) In this manner, since the Maruti Construction Ahmedabad has protected the interest of the Government and has complied with the orders of the Government, it is requested to your good-self to correspond with the government that, the orders passed under the Office orders dated 17/18/12/2018 and 26/12/2018 to stop our payment be withdrawn and the Maruti Construction Ahmedabad be spared from punitive actions and other related procedure. Considering all these facts, it is requested that at this stage, we should be spared from the show-cause notice for blacklisting us so that we do not have to face injustice after being deprived of our right to apply for the tenders and get the works of the Government and other departments competitively. It is also imperative that the rules prescribed by the Government regarding blacklisting are followed. However, it is to be informed that if any punitive actions will be taken against us rejecting our explanations, our right to get justice and take legal actions shall remain opened. Maruti Construction Company Copy to: (1) Chief Engineer, Rajkot (2) Superintendent Engineer, Circle – 4 , Limbadi. 7. Thus, it appears that the writ-applicant in collusion with the respondent no.6 is alleged to have created bogus and forged orders and agreements and on the strength of the same, misappropriated Rs.2,47,30,228/-. This amount came to be credited in the bank account of the writ-applicant at the instance of the Nigam on the basis of the so-called bogus agreements and orders. The agreements and orders we are talking about, are one relating to the construction work at the site of the Nigam. 8. This amount came to be credited in the bank account of the writ-applicant at the instance of the Nigam on the basis of the so-called bogus agreements and orders. The agreements and orders we are talking about, are one relating to the construction work at the site of the Nigam. 8. Being dissatisfied with the order impugned, the writ-applicant has come up before this Court with the present writ-application. 9. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant would submit that his client is innocent and has been made a scapegoat. According to Mr. Mangukiya, the mastermind behind the entire fraud is the respondent no.6. Mr. Mangukiya fairly admitted that the respondent no.6 is a close friend or associate of his client. According to Mr. Mangukiya, even the reply to the notice issued by the Nigam referred to above was drafted by the respondent no.6. However, Mr. Mangukiya has to submit as regards the conduct of his client. According to Mr. Mangukiya, no sooner his client came to learn about the fraud, then the first thing he did was to refund the entire amount of Rs.2,47,30,228/- referred to above to the Nigam. This according to Mr. Mangukiya would reflect on the bonafide of his client. Mr. Mangukiya further admitted that his client has nothing to do with any contract so far as the Nigam is concerned. 10. Mr. Mangukiya would submit that he could have ignored the impugned order as the Nigam has not assigned any contract to the writ-applicant. However, he had to come before this Court because the impugned order is coming in the way of the writ-applicant so far as other contracts with the public sector undertakings are concerned. In other words, according to Mr. Mangukiya, his client as on date has undertaken the contract work of many public sector undertakings and as and when he would presents the bills of the work undertaken by him, then such bills would not be cleared in view of the impugned order passed by the Nigam dated 26.02.2019. In such circumstances, according to Mr. Mangukiya, he needs to challenge the impugned order. 11. Mr. Mangukiya in the last submitted that even otherwise the impugned order could be termed as a non-speaking order and also vague. He would submit that the show-cause notice also could be termed as absolutely vague. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. In such circumstances, according to Mr. Mangukiya, he needs to challenge the impugned order. 11. Mr. Mangukiya in the last submitted that even otherwise the impugned order could be termed as a non-speaking order and also vague. He would submit that the show-cause notice also could be termed as absolutely vague. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Mangukiya prays that there being merit in his writ-application, the same be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other-hand, this writ-application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Sanjay Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the State of Gujarat. 13. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel would submit that the case on hand is of a large scale fraud. Many top officials of the Nigam are said to be involved in this fraud. According to Mr. Mehta, inquiry was initiated way-back in the year 2019 and an appropriate report is likely to be submitted before the State Government in near future. However, Mr. Mehta conceded that till this date no criminal prosecution has been instituted against any person. Mr. Mehta invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Nigam, more particularly, the following averments. “7. It is respectfully submitted that as admitted by the petitioner in the petition no work was for construction of chak was ever allotted to the petitioner in Saurashtra Branch Canal Dn. No.2/1, Dhrangadhra by the answering respondents. However, by fabricating false and fake documents the petitioner raised bills for Rs.2,47,30,228/- towards construction of 14 chaks which was deposited in the Bank Account of the petitioner in the HDFC Bank, Bapunagar Branch by way of RTGS on 02/11/2018 and which was re-deposited by the petitioner on 04/12/2018. 8. However, in the entire petition the petitioner has tried to mislead this Hon’ble Court by saying that respondents No.6 approached the petitioner and used petitioner’s letterhead etc. 8. However, in the entire petition the petitioner has tried to mislead this Hon’ble Court by saying that respondents No.6 approached the petitioner and used petitioner’s letterhead etc. for the signature of the petitioner and told the petitioner that he has been allotted work of construction of 14 chaks as mentioned in para 6 of the petition details of which are produced by way of a table in para 6 page 8 of the petition and for that after the petitioner received the payment, petitioner transferred the amount in the account of respondents no.6 and subsequently, got the amount back from respondents no.6 and paid back to the answering respondents. 9. In the petition, the petitioner has admitted that he has received the amount on 02/11/2018 and thereafter he was informed by the respondents no.6 that he has completed the work which he obtained in the name of the petitioner. Inspite of that the petitioner did not bother to inform about the ill tactics adopted by respondent no.6 if the story narrated by the petitioner believed to be true. But in reality the version narrated by the petitioner in the present petition is nothing but a cooked up story. The petitioner was well aware about the entire scam of misappropriation of money by way of irregular payment made to the petitioner without there being any work order. Not only the conduct of the petitioner but also the letter dated 26/02/2019 written by the petitioner suggest that the petitioner had not only knowledge about the entire scam but also he was actively involved in the scam. 10. The story narrated by the petitioner by way of present petition and the letter written by the petitioner dated 26/02/2019 annexed as Annexure-F at page-39 to the petition itself are self contradictory. Since this letter is produced by the petitioner himself, the petitioner cannot deny either the contents of the letter or the fact that letter is written by the petitioner. In the letter dated 26/02/2019 addressed to Saurashtra Branch Canal Dn. No.2/1, Dhrangadhra at Annexure-F to the petitioner, in response to the explanation sought from the petitioner, the petitioner has narrated an entirely different version then what is stated in the petition and has submitted as under:- 1. In the letter dated 26/02/2019 addressed to Saurashtra Branch Canal Dn. No.2/1, Dhrangadhra at Annexure-F to the petitioner, in response to the explanation sought from the petitioner, the petitioner has narrated an entirely different version then what is stated in the petition and has submitted as under:- 1. The petitioner has admitted and accepted the fact that the petitioner handed over the entire work of the work order to one sub contractor R.K. Infra (Bhavesh Kevadia) and he also annexed the copy of the contract agreement as well as work order dated 27/06/2018. Though at annexure-F the petitioner has not produced contract entered into between petitioner and R.K. Infra and the work order dated 27/06/2018, both these documents are produced along with this affidavit. 2. A perusal of work order would go to show that the date of work order is 27/06/2018 having O.W.No.SBC/Dn.2/1/AB 590 whereas the photocopy of the Outward register of the Executive Engineer Saurashtra Branch Canal Dn. No.2/1, Dhrangadhra shows that on 25/06/2018 the series of outward number 1701 and onwards was going on. Not only that on the basis of the said fraudulently work order, petitioner entered into a contract agreement with respondents no.6 vide contract agreement dated 30/06/2018 and sublet the work which was entrusted to the petitioner vide fraudulent work order dated 27/06/2018. As per the policy of the Nigam, even in case if the work order dated 27/06/2018 would have been a genuine work order, then also the petitioner could not have sublet the work of construction of chaks and other UGPL works. However, this contract agreement as well as fraudulent work order dated 27/06/2018 produced by the petitioner in respect of construction of 14 different chaks (total 14 work separate work orders in number) were produced by the petitioner himself along with letter dated 26/02/2019 and therefore, it is established beyond any doubt that at no point of time any work was even allotted to the petitioner for this 14 chaks and yet the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent no.6. The outward number shows that the work orders are forged, fabricated and fake and it also establishes that the petitioner had knowledge about the same atleast from 30/06/2018 onwards. 3. In it’s letter dated 26/02/2019 the petitioner has admitted the fact that the petitioner accepted the amount which was paid to him towards advance bill. The outward number shows that the work orders are forged, fabricated and fake and it also establishes that the petitioner had knowledge about the same atleast from 30/06/2018 onwards. 3. In it’s letter dated 26/02/2019 the petitioner has admitted the fact that the petitioner accepted the amount which was paid to him towards advance bill. However, in the petition a totally different story is narrated and there is no mentioned about advance bill. 4. In the letter dated 26/02/2019 the petitioner has also admitted that it is respondent no.6 who informed the petitioner that since the works were cancelled the payment made towards advance bill also is required refunded back to Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and accordingly, respondent no.6 paid the amount back to the petitioner and in turn the petitioner paid the amount back to Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. However, in the petition in para-6 internal page 9 of the petition, the petitioner has stated altogether different version on oath and stated that the respondent no.6 informed the petitioner that the work is already completed and if any information is given to the Nigam would also create serious problem not only to the respondents but also the petitioner. 11. The aforesaid contradictions would go to show that whatever is stated by the petitioner in the petition is a cooked up story and the petitioner has also concealed the fact that he himself entered into a contract agreement with respondents no.6 on 30/06/2018 for construction of 14 chaks for which though work orders were never issued, payments were received by the petitioner and though the petitioner had knowledge about the same, the petitioner retained it for more than 1 month and did not return it immediately. 12. In view of whatever is stated herein above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner is trying to mislead this Hon’ble Court by suppressing the material fact and by narrating a cooked up story which is contrary to petitioner’s own correspondence dated 26/02/2019 and documents annexed to that communication and therefore, the action taken by the answering respondents against the petitioner are justified and the petition is required to be dismissed with cost.” 14. Mr. Mr. Mehta, thereafter, invited the attention of this Court to one additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Nigam, which reads thus:- “1. I say that a big scam of excess payment made to the concern agency for the work of construction of chak was unearthed and at the time when the scam was unearthed, the approximate amount that was paid in excess of actual entitlement of contractors to whom the work was entrusted to was around Rs.86 Crores. This figure was only a tentative figure when the heights authority came to know about the scam and therefore, the heights authority of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited directed Chief Engineer (Quality Control) to look into the matter by conducting an inquiry which includes site visit, taking measurement of the alleged work done by the concerned agency, scrutiny of office record pertaining to various contracts related to work for which the amount was claimed and wrongly paid to the concerned agency, a forensic audit of the entire record related to scam by an outsider agency and to look into the matter about involvement of officers of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited who helped the contractors in carrying out entire scam. 2. As the scam is on a large scale and a number of agencies are involved in it and considering the fact that there are separate work orders issued for construction of each of the chak. Moreover, in respect of each of the chack a separate procedure is required to be followed which includes providing estimate for construction of chak, technical sanction, tri party agreement, issuance of work order, maintaining various registers, submission of bills, audit of the same and the details about various items claimed in the running bills and final bill and the agency’s entitlement of actual amount by cross checking various documents and site inspection of actual work done by the agency. This entire exercise is a huge task and that will take not only a considerable time but also will require examination of a number of documents and verifying the details of the documents by visiting the site and taking the measurement of actual work done. 3. This entire exercise is a huge task and that will take not only a considerable time but also will require examination of a number of documents and verifying the details of the documents by visiting the site and taking the measurement of actual work done. 3. Considering the fact that the scam is so big, that if the agencies involved in construction of chaks are permitted to carry out he work in respect of other contracts in Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited or if they are permitted to continue to supply pieps to Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, in that case there was a possibility that on one hand the inquiry/investigation goes on and on the other hand the irregularities may continue to occur. Therefore, to safeguard the interest of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and to see that there may not be any further misappropriation of money (by way of excess payment) of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, which is public exchequer’s money it was required to ensure that Nigam may not be put to any further financial loss, and therefore, as a measure to safeguard the interest of Nigam, it was decided to debar the agencies which were involved in the work of construction of chaks in Dhrangadhra division. 4. Once the inquiry is completed and report of the inquiry is made available, if it is found that the petitioner/ the agency has not committed any irregularity or has not claimed any payment in excess of their actual entitlement, Sardar Sarovar Naramada Nigam Limited is open to review the order of debarment from the existing work of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited or the order of deleting the name of the petitioner from the approved supplier of pipes, to Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited in respect of that particular agency including the petitioner agency. However, if ultimately, on completion of inquiry, on the basis of inquiry report, if it is found that the agency/ petitioner is involved in the scam, in that case the question of reviewing aforesaid decision does not arise. 5. However, if ultimately, on completion of inquiry, on the basis of inquiry report, if it is found that the agency/ petitioner is involved in the scam, in that case the question of reviewing aforesaid decision does not arise. 5. At present as stated in foregoing paragraphs the order of debar/deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of approved supplier of pipes is passed only as a preventative measure, during the pendency of the inquiry that is being conducted by Chief Engineer (Quality Control), the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited on completion of inquiry will review the case of the petitioner, if no material is found against the petitioner and if in the inquiry report a clean cheat is given to the petitioner, the order of debar/ deleting the name from the approved pipe supplier will be reconsidered and fresh orders revoking the aforesaid orders will be passed.” 15. According to Mr. Mehta, the writ-applicant is very much involved in the fraud alongwith respondent no.6. Mr. Mehta would submit that the contention raised on behalf of the writ-applicant that the show-cause notice and the impugned order are vague, is without any merit. The reply filed by the writ-applicant would indicate that the writ-applicant understood the case put up by the Nigam against him and has accordingly given the reply. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Mehta prays that there being no merit in this writ-application, the same may be rejected. 16. On 19.03.2019, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Bela Prajapati for Mr. B.M. Mangukiya for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has placed under challenge an order dated 22.2.2019 whereby the respondents have debarred the petitioner from completing the execution of on-going/pending contracts/projects. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed without issuing any show-cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be debarred. Any grounds to debar the petitioner were not conveyed before passing the impugned order and any opportunity of hearing also was not granted to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. 4. From the record, it emerges that the respondent served a notice dated 18.2.2019 calling upon the petitioner. Any grounds to debar the petitioner were not conveyed before passing the impugned order and any opportunity of hearing also was not granted to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. 4. From the record, it emerges that the respondent served a notice dated 18.2.2019 calling upon the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that said notice called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be placed under blacklist. 5. The petitioner would also contend that any notice to debar the petitioner has not been issued and is not served to the petitioner. 6. It is also submitted that in response to the notice dated 18.2.2019 (which, according to the petitioner was received on 25.2.2019), reply is already filed. 7. Since impugned order is, according to the petitioner, passed without granting opportunity to hear and allegedly in violation of principles of natural justice, following order is passed:- “Notice, returnable on 25.3.2019. Until then, the petitioner will not be debarred, restrained or prohibited from participating in any tender process on the ground that order dated 22.2.2019 is passed and the petitioner is debarred from executing and completing pending projects.” 8. Direct service today is permitted.” 17. On 24.06.2019, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “Mr. Desai, learned advocate for respondent No.3 seeks time. With reference to the said request, Mr.P.K. Jani, learned senior counsel submits that the finalisation of the minutes of the Committee's meeting is in progress and it is likely to be finalised in short time. Therefore, S.O. to 1.7.2019 with consent of Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then.” 18. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the writ-applicant is entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the present writ application. 19. We fail to understand, why the Nigam in the first instance had to pass the impugned order. When no contract has been awarded to the writ-applicant, then why the Nigam had to say in the impugned order that the writ-applicant was being debarred from the running work at the site of the Nigam. Why should the writ applicant be debarred when he is noway concerned with the Nigam. When no contract has been awarded to the writ-applicant, then why the Nigam had to say in the impugned order that the writ-applicant was being debarred from the running work at the site of the Nigam. Why should the writ applicant be debarred when he is noway concerned with the Nigam. Prima-facie, it appears that the bogus bills alongwith the bogus work orders came to be prepared in the name of the writ-applicant and on the basis of which, the bills got sanctioned and a huge amount of more than Rs.2 Crore ultimately came to be credited in the bank account of the writ-applicant. How this happened, is a matter of investigation. The writ-applicant says that he is innocent and had no idea how such amount came to be credited in his bank account and the day, he came to know about it, he refunded the amount to the Nigam. However, such explanation or defence of the writ-applicant at this stage is not sufficient to exonerate him. The matter will have to be investigated thoroughly. We fail to understand why till this date the Nigam has not thought fit to file an FIR with top investigating agency like the CID Crime, State of Gujarat. Why only preliminary inquiry has been undertaken so far? Its being almost three years but still there is no clarity as regards the alleged fraud. 20. We are of the view that if the writ-applicant has an apprehension that the impugned order may come in his way so far as clearing of the bills of other contracts with other corporations is concerned, then it is for the writ-applicant to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. As we have observed that this order was not at all necessary and in such circumstances, even the writ-applicant may ignore this order. Tomorrow, if any of his bills of any running contract is not cleared on the premise of the order impugned in the present writ application, then he can always point out to the authority concerned that they cannot do so and the amount cannot be withhold for the work already undertaken by him. 21. In view of the aforesaid, we see no good reason to entertain this writ-application. 21. In view of the aforesaid, we see no good reason to entertain this writ-application. Before parting we may only observe that the Nigam should now consider entrusting the entire investigation to an agency like the CID Crime, State of Gujarat so that the necessary action in accordance with law can be taken against the persons responsible for this fraud. 22. With the aforesaid observation, this writ-application stands rejected. Notice discharged. Ad-interim relief earlier granted stands vacated forthwith. Even otherwise there are highly disputed questions of fact involved in this writ-application, which cannot be gone into.