ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the notice dated 10.11.2022 terminating the contract of the petitioner and seeks a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to execute the work in terms of the contract dated 17.10.2022.

2. Heard Sri. Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.S. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials on record.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief are as follows:

The petitioner is in the business of performing work of collection, washing and ironing of bedroll linen supplied to AC coach passengers in several trains coming under the respondent – South Western Railways. The respondent-South Western Railways issue a notice inviting tender for the aforesaid work which the petitioner is said to be performing on 24.05.2022. The petitioner participates in the said tender. On 17.10.2022 the respondent awards the contract in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the said order of award of contract, the petitioner requests permission to execute the work at M/s. Laundry Labs India Pvt. Ltd., which was not the one that was necessary in terms of the tender conditions. Noticing the fact the petitioner did not have appropriate infrastructure and had deliberately misrepresented with regard to the laundry space issues a notice on 02.11.2022 seeking to show cause as to why the contract of the petitioner should not be terminated.

4. The petitioner replies to the said notice. Pending consideration of the reply, certain developments take place. The respondent terminates the contract between the petitioner and the South Western Railways on account of the aforesaid circumstance of the act of the petitioner being in violation of tender conditions. It later transpires that the tender itself gets cancelled. In the light of the cancellation of the tender, what remains to be considered is, whether the impugned notice of termination would be necessary to be gone into.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though would accept the fact that the tender has been cancelled and, in the light of such cancellation, the prayer with regard to termination of the contract of the petitioner would not survive, the learned counsel claims that he is still aggrieved of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 insofar as it blacklists the petitioner for a period of 2 years.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Sri.B.S.Venkatanarayan would refute the submissions to contend that since the petitioner has deliberately misrepresented before the Authorities, the action of blacklisting cannot be found fault with, but he would admit that the show cause notice issued was only with regard to termination of contract.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. With the subsequent development of cancellation of the tender itself, the issue now revolves around a narrow compass only with regard to the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner for a period of 2 years from the date of the said order i.e., from 10.11.2022. To consider the tenability of the said order of blacklisting, it is germane to notice the show cause notice issued to the petitioner seeking to show cause as to why the contract should not be terminated. The notice was issued on 02.11.2022, the notice so issued reads as follows:

"M/s. The Cap A Pie,

Regd Office D/12 Pruthvi,

Nr Jodhpur Cross Roads,

Sette Road, Ahmedabad -350015

SEVEN DAYS NOTICE as per GCC Service.claves.no.7.4.2 (WITHOUT PREJUDICE)

Sub: The work of Collection, Washing & Ironing of Bedroll Linens supplied to AC coach passengers in various trains of SBC & YPR depots for a period of one year. Commencement of work.

Ref: 1. GeM Work Order No. GEMC5116677563978 Dated 17.10.2022

2. The Cap A Pie Ltr No. Nil, dated.01.11.2022

Vide reference-1, the