In Kulja (supra), the Supreme Court had laid down the guidelines for
any action of blacklisting. The factors that were necessary to be considered
by the authority imposing the punitive measure were summarised as
follows:-
“21. The guidelines also stipulate the factors that may
influence the debarring official’s decision which include
the following:
(a) The actual or potential harm or impact that results
or may result from the wrongdoing.
(b) The frequency of incidents and/or duration of the
wrongdoing.
(c) Whether there is a pattern or prior history of
wrongdoing.
(d) Whether contractor has been excluded or
disqualified by an agency of the Federal Government or
have not been allowed to participate in State or local
contracts or assistance agreements on a basis of conduct
similar to one or more of the causes for debarment
specified in this part.
(e) Whether and to what extent did the contractor plan,
initiate or carry out the wrongdoing.
(f) Whether the contractor has accepted responsibility
for the wrongdoing and recognized the seriousness of the
misconduct.
(g) Whether the contractor has paid or agreed to pay
all criminal, civil and administrative liabilities for the
improper activity, including any investigative or
administrative costs incurred by the government, and
have made or agreed to make full restitution.
(h) Whether contractor has cooperated fully with the
government agencies during the investigation and any
court or administrative action.
(i) Whether the wrongdoing was pervasive within the
contractor’s organization.
(j) The kind of positions held by the individuals
involved in the wrongdoing.
(k) Whether the contractor has taken appropriate
corrective action or remedial measures, such as
establishing ethics training and implementing programs to
prevent recurrence.
(l) Whether the contractor fully investigated the
circumstances surrounding the cause for debarment and,
if so, made the result of the investigation available to the
debarring official.”
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 06.02.2015
W.P.(C) 2041/2014 & CM Nos. 4256/2014 & 14287/2014
M/S AVINASH EM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....
versus
M/S GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
Dated;FEBRUARY 06, 2015
