JUDGMENT

Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video Conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Memo no. 2623 dated 01.09.2018, issued by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gaya, whereby and whereunder the N.G.O. of the petitioner namely Kishor Mahila Shishu Kalyan Sansthan has been blacklisted.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the details of this case, has raised a short issue to the effect that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 would show that the blacklisting of the petitioner's N.G.O. is for an indefinite period i.e in perpetuity. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 is an unreasoned Order and no reason whatsoever has been furnished to come to a conclusion that the N.G.O. of the petitioner is required to be blacklisted. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment dated 26.02.2020, rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in C.W.J.C. no. 2006 of 2020 (M/s Aryabhat Computers v. The State of Bihar and others), to submit that an order passed without furnishing any cogent reason is vitiated in the eyes of law. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 is contrary to the law of the land, thus is required to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State Sri Surya Kant Kumar, AC to GA 8 has submitted that appropriate show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, inter alia stating therein that the N.G.O. of the petitioner had raised inflated bills and had drawn excess amount in the name of supplying electricity by generator, than what was required to be charged as per the agreement. It is submitted that only after considering the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 has been passed, as such there is no ambiguity as far as the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 is concerned.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, from which it is apparent that a cryptic order, not furnishing any cogent, clear and succinct reason in support of the decision dated 01.09.2018, has been passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gaya, rendering the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 vitiated in the eyes of law. Another aspect of the matter is that since the order of black-listing entails severe consequences, the same cannot be passed in perpetuity i.e. for all times to come, hence on this ground as well, the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 is fit to be set aside. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731; paragraphs no. 25 to 29 whereof, are reproduced herein below:-

"25. Suffice it to say that "debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the "debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.

26. In the case at hand according to the respondent BSNL, the appellant had fraudulently withdrawn a huge amount of money which was not due to it in collusion and conspiracy with the officials of the respondent Corporation. Even so permanent debarment from future contracts for all times to come may sound too harsh and heavy a punishment to be considered reasonable especially when (a) the appellant is supplying bulk of its manufactured products to the re