The requirement of giving reasons, adherence to principles of natural justice, and fairness in administrative actions, especially in cases of blacklisting or imposing penalties, is essential for a valid decision-making process and judicial review.

ORDER :

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Communication bearing No.2012/LS/54/3, dated 03.07.2013, issued by the Respondent No.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of modern laundry and dry cleaning equipment, having clients across India and overseas, both in the private and public sector. The Petitioner was the successful tenderer/bidder pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 15.3.2010 issued by the Respondent No.2 and accordingly was issued the purchase order dated 10.05.2010. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the said order was implemented to the satisfaction of the Respondent No.2.

3. The Respondent No.1 had issued a Memorandum dated 30.10.2012 notifying various malpractices/irregularities which the Petitioner was charged with and a detailed Statement of Charge/misconduct was enclosed along with the said Memorandum. It was also notified about the proposal to ban the business dealing of the Petitioner with the Indian Railways for a period of 5 years. Vide the said Memorandum, an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action taken was also notified to the petitioner.

4. In reply to the said Memorandum dated 30.10.2012, the Petitioner furnished replies dated 12.10.2012, 21.01.2013 and 13.02.2013. Vide Notice dated 10.4.2013, the Petitioner was notified of an opportunity of oral hearing that was to be afforded on 10.5.2013 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, in response to the Notice dated 10.4.2013, vide letter dated 07.05.2013, confirmed their participation on the date of oral hearing and further has furnished certain additional replies to the Statement of Charge. The representatives of the Petitioner attended the oral hearing, a copy of the Minutes of which was also furnished to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1, vide order bearing No.2012/LS/54/3, dated 03.07.2013, banned the Petitioner for a period of 5 years, which has been impugned in the present Writ Petition.

5. The Respondents have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. In the statement of objections, the Respondents have defended their action of blacklisting the Petitioner and in detail furnished their response with regard to the allegations made against the Petitioner. It is also stated that the Petitioner has admitted certain charges made against it. It is further stated that the principles of natural justice were followed, inasmuch as an opportunity was given and the representations of the Petitioner were considered as also an opportunity of oral hearing was provided before issuing the impugned Communication. The process of banning being an administrative process, subjective satisfaction is sufficient and the banning order was sought to be justified. It is denied that the competitors of the Petitioner was responsible for initiation of action by the Respondents.

6. The Petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by the Respondents.

7. Dr.Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner put forth the following contentions;

(a) a detailed explanation furnishing replies to all the allegations made was given by the Petitioner to the Respondents;

(b) there was no deliberate attempt by the Petitioner to supply substandard machinery or to pass off machinery of a particular make as that of the other;

(c) certain actions were taken by the Petitioner in the interest of providing good and efficient service as sought for by the Respondents within a specified time framework and the moment the Respondents conveyed their objections/dissatisfaction to certain aspects of the work done by the Petitioner, the same was immediately rectified in the form of supplying a new machinery or redoing the work at the sole cost of the Petitioner;

(d) a business competitor of the Petitioner was instrumental for initiation of action by the Respondents;

(e) large amounts of money were still due and payable from the Respondents to the