ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question order dated 17-10-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent blacklisting the 1st petitioner or any of its sister concerns or partners to have any business dealings with the 1st respondent/Union of India, Ministry of Railways. For the sake of convenience the petitioners would be referred to as the petitioner unless specifically referred to by their ranking and the respondents as Railways.

2. Heard Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.B. Nargund, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of carrying out construction activities on contract basis for various Government organizations and claims to be in the said business from 2011. Concerning the Railways, the petitioner claims that it has executed all the works that are assigned by the Railways following due process of law and in compliance with Rules and Regulations. The issue in the case does not concern any notice issued inviting tender or award of contract for execution of works. The issue concerns aftermath of award of a particular tender. A tender was notified in which the petitioner had emerged to be a successful bidder which was construction of road over the bridge of railway span composite girder and PSC girder at Yeswanthpur - Yelahanka section.

4. The commencement of work had happened on 05-06-2015. The concerned authority notified an order of completion on 05-11-2018. After about 2 years of completion of construction work, statement of charges/misconduct against the petitioner comes to be issued on 10-08-2021 enclosing statement of charges directing the petitioner to submit its reply on or before 12-09-2021. The charges were four in number. The petitioner on 08-09-2021 submitted an elaborate reply on each of the charges. On 16-05-2022; a second reply and again on 17-06-2022 a third reply in greater detail and on 01-08-2022, the petitioner as insisted by the respondent/Railways informed that it would attend the office of the respondent on 04-08-2022 along with copies of detailed reply statements that were submitted from time to time. The petitioner claims to have attended the office and explained all the details. What comes about as a result of the said proceeding is the impugned order. The impugned order is dated 17-10-2022 which blacklists the petitioner/firm and bans it in any dealings with the Railways for a period of 5 years. Not stopping at that, on the very same day, a communication is sent to the Tender Inviting Authority and the Tender Inviting Authority rejects the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been blacklisted on 17-10-2022. It is these actions that are called in question in the subject petition.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, though has urged several contentions, what would merit consideration for the present is the contention that the order which blacklists the petitioner bears no application of mind as it contains no reasons. It is his submission that the order blacklisting has serious consequence upon the petitioner and the immediate consequence is non-consideration of his case in the tender on the ground that he has been blacklisted. Therefore, he submits that the order that blacklists the petitioner is untenable and requires to be reconsidered. He would submit that in the event the Court would not be considering the issue with regard to non-application of mind in the impugned order, he would then make his submissions on merits of the matter.

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondent/Railways would refute, on the threshold, the issue that is raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with regard to non-application of mind on the pa