S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 12th July, 2017, copy of which is Exhibit-A to the petition. This order, by an operative direction, removes the petitioner's name from the empanelled list of Consultants (copy the name from page 18) and blacklisted for the period of seven years along with its Directors/Power of Attorney holders from the date of service of this order on them. The order recites that the petitioner cannot compete, enter into any contract with and for carrying out any work with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Departments (for short “MCGM”).

2. Since the writ petition has been pending in this Court for a long time and by virtue of the earlier orders it is apparent that it has to be disposed of finally, we grant Rule.

3. Since extensive arguments have been canvassed at the stage of admission itself, with the consent of both sides, we proceed to dispose of this petition finally by this judgment.

4. The petitioner before this Court is a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents before this Court are firstly the State of Maharashtra and secondly the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The third respondent is the Director (Engineering Services and Projects) who has passed the impugned order. He is in the services of the second respondent – MCGM.

5. The petitioner asserts in the writ petition that it is a subsidiary of SGS SA based out of Geneva, Europe and claims to be the market leader in the field of Engineering products and certifications. It has forty offices and twenty eight laboratories in India employing over 5300 persons. The facts are that on 23rd October, 2013, MCGM issued an advertisement for request for qualification inviting consultants engaged in the work of quality assurance, quality control and quality audit to be empanelled with the respondent No.2 for the work of project monitoring services and quality assurance, quality control and quality audit. This was for various tendered road works in the city of Greater Mumbai for a period of three years on a fixed remuneration of 0.85% of the actual cost of the work done by the contractor.

6. Since an argument is canvassed with regard to the ambit and scope of the work, it would be desirable at a later stage to refer to the relevant terms and conditions set out in the tender.

7. For the present, the undisputed fact is that the petitioner successfully qualified as per the tender. It was empanelled with the MCGM as a consultant. By a letter of acceptance dated 8th January, 2014, Exhibit-C, the petitioner was communicated by the Municipal Corporation its acceptance for empanelling it. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner complied with the terms of acceptance by furnishing a bank guarantee and a signed agreement. After the petitioner was empanelled, work order was issued on 1st February, 2014, by the MCGM. The petitioner claims to have worked in terms of this work order and what is material according to the petitioner to note is that in the month of May, 2016, the petitioner was shocked and surprised to note that an FIR was lodged with the Police machinery alleging commission of certain offences and during the course of execution of the road projects. Meaning thereby, several roads were sought to be laid or constructed by the Municipal Corporation in terms of its statutory obligations and contractors were engaged for the said work. Thereafter, certain complaints were received with regard to the quality of the work allegedly and which lead to the institution of the FIR.

8. On 6th June, 2016, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 4th June, 2016, and this show cause notice, copy of which is at Exhibit-H to the petition, points out that the petitioner was engaged for the works and particularly, quality assurance, quality control and quality audit for road works during the construction process so as to take timely