The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a speaking order, adherence to principles of natural justice, and the need for the authority passing the order to have considered the submissions made by the affected party.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. By the present judgment we will dispose of W.P.(C) 7265/2015, W.P. (C) 7656/2015 & LPA 547/2015. All the Petitions and appeal are filed by the appellant company and arise from common facts.

2. The controversy centres around a letter dated 10.08.2015 issued by the respondent blacklisting the appellant company. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2012 the respondent issued a notice inviting bids for the Rs 10 Project. The bids were opened and the appellant company was declared the lowest bidder. A Letter of Award dated 01.04.2013 was issued by the respondent to the appellant. This was followed by a Contract Agreement dated 24.05.2013. The execution of the contract commenced and is said to be continuing. The appellant has received a part payment of approximately Rs.880.2 crores out of the total value of the contact of about Rs.4500 crores.

3. On 05.11.2014 the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant company bringing to its notice about a restraint letter dated 14.12.2011 issued by Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AAI’) by which the AAI had decided not to issue tenders for future works in favour of the appellant company for a period of three years. The appellant was asked for the reasons for non-submission of this information in the appellants tender bid to the respondent. It is the case of the appellant that the AAI tender pertained to and was dealt with by the Plant & Machinery Division of the company which is a distinct unit from the Rolling Stock Division of the appellant, which is handling the present contract. It is also stated that two officials of the Plant & Machinery Division who were handling the AAI bid never informed the senior management of the appellant about the developments which took place with AAI and which led to letter dated 14.12.2011 being issued by the AAI. The officials concerned did not inform their superiors in the appellant on account of apprehension of adverse consequence. It was also the case of the appellant that these two officers were guilty of breach of duty and hence an inquiry was conducted by the appellant and these two officers were terminated from the appellant company. It is also pointed out that on 14.12.2014 the period of restraint letter under the AAI letter dated 14.12.2011 came to an end after having run its course of 3 years. The appellant company wrote several communications to the respondent including letters dated 14.11.2014 and 17.12.2014 to the above effect.

4. On 16.06.2015, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the appellant company seeking an explanation as to why action as contemplated in the contract should not be taken against the appellant company on account of it having indulged in a fraudulent practice of not having disclosed the details of the AAI debarment. Replies were submitted by the appellant on 30.06.2015, 21.07.2015 and 28.07.2015. The appellant also requested for a personal hearing. On 29.07.2015 the respondent issued a letter blacklisting the appellant company for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 15.07.2015.

5. Accordingly, the appellant filed a Writ Petition (C) No.7265/2015 challenging the letter dated 29.07.2015 and seeking quashing of the same. After having filed the Writ Petition it appears that the appellant received a communication dated 29.07.2015 from the respondent calling it for a formal personal hearing on 31.07.2015. However, the W. P. (C) No.7265/2015 was listed in the Court on the said date, i.e. on 31.07.2015. The learned Single Judge who heard the matter directed the appellant to appear before the respondent on 03.08.2015 for a personal hearing and directed the respondent to pass an order within a week. The said Writ Petition was kept pending and is being disposed off by the present order.

6. On 10.08.2015 after having heard the appellant, the respondent reiterated its earlier order blacklisting the appellant company for a period of 5 years retrospectively from 15.07.2015.

7. The