JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The respondent No. 2 invited a request for proposal ( for short, RFP) dated 25.03.2021 for “Engagement and Consultant for Implementation of Accounting Assignments in Chhattisgarh”. Four tenderers including the petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender process. The petitioner had submitted its bid on 21.06.2021.

3. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the security deposit made in terms of clause 3.5(f)(f) of the RFP has been forfeited and further, in terms of clause 3.35.2 of the RFP, the petitioner has been debarred from participating in the future tender process of the respondent No. 2 for a period of two years.

4. The order dated 03.11.2021 is, primarily, assailed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted and that the petitioner had not suppressed any material information in the tender submitted.

5. The respondent No. 1 filed its reply stating that the respondent No. 2 had communicated the minutes of the meeting of the Tender Committee held on 22.09.2021, whereby recommendation was made to reject the proposal of the petitioner and to forfeit the security deposit in terms of clause 3.5(f)(f) of the RFP and for re-tendering. On such proposal being received, permission was given to re-tender the work with forfeiture of the bid security and barring the petitioner from participating in any of the tender process for a period of two years.

6. There is no denial in the reply-affidavit that notice was not issued to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed.

7. The respondent No. 2 has filed its reply-affidavit wherein also, there is no denial to the allegation that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order debarring the petitioner from participating in the tender process for a period of two years. The stand taken in the affidavit is that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by not giving any opportunity of hearing as even if opportunity was provided, the same would not alter the position as the suppression resorted to by the petitioner goes to the root of the matter.

8. Pleadings of the parties would demonstrate that it is an admitted position that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before the order debarring the petitioner was passed.

9. During the course of hearing also, Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, abiding by the stand taken in the reply, submitted that grant of an opportunity of hearing, in the facts and circumstances of the case would be an empty formality and as such, no notice was issued to the petitioner.

10. Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that though, by the impugned order dated 03.11.2021, the security deposit of the petitioner was forfeited apart from debarring the petitioner from participating in the future tender of the respondent No. 2 for a period of two years, the petitioner is limiting the challenge made in this writ petition only to that part of the order by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of two years. Mr. Bharat submits that it is no longer res integra that before an order of blacklisting is passed, a show cause notice is required to be issued and when admittedly show cause notice has not been issued, the order of blacklisting cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In this connection, he has placed reliance in the decisions of the Hon’ble Court in M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Another, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70, Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, and U