G. ROHINI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 5851/2016. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant before us.

2. By order dated 10.08.2015, the appellant/writ petitioner was blacklisted by the respondent/Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (for short 'DMRC') for a period of five years from 15.07.2015 on the ground that the appellant/writ petitioner, at the time of submission of its bid, had not disclosed that it was debarred for a period of three years by the Airport Authority of India by order dated 14.12.2011. Challenging the order of DMRC dated 15.07.2015, the appellant herein filed W.P. (C) No. 7656/2015. The said writ petition along with W.P. (C) No. 7265/2015 and LPA No. 547/2015 was disposed of by the Division Bench, to which one of us (Chief Justice) was a member, by judgment dated 23.11.2015 setting aside the impugned order of blacklisting.

3. Having regard to the fact that the order of blacklisting dated 10.08.2015 was set aside by this Court on the ground of absence of reasons and no proper opportunity of personal hearing was afforded, the respondent/DMRC passed a fresh order dated 06.07.2016 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant. By the said order, the petitioner/appellant has again been blacklisted for a period of five years with effect from 15.07.2015. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 5851/2016. By the order under appeal dated 08.07.2016, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition so far as the issue of blacklisting is concerned. However, with regard to the period of blacklisting, notice has been issued to the respondent, returnable on 07.09.2016.

4. The said order is assailed before us in the present appeal.

5. We have heard Shri Parag P. Tripathi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner and Shri P.P. Malhotra, Senior Advocate appearing for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

6. One of the grounds upon which the order of blacklisting dated 06.07.2016 was impugned before the learned Single Judge was that the Managing Director of DMRC who passed the said order is not the competent authority. It was contended that the Board of Directors of DMRC alone is the competent authority.

7. The said contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge observing that as no such ground had been raised in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner is barred by principles of constructive res judicata from raising the plea of competence.

8. It is contended before us by Shri Parag P. Tripathi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner that the respondent/DMRC for the first time in its counter affidavit dated 15.09.2015 in LPA No. 547/2015 had pleaded that the competent authority was the Managing Director of DMRC and till such time the appellant was not aware of the same and therefore, there was no occasion to raise the said ground when the previous blacklisting order dated 10.08.2015 was challenged.

9. Pointing out that the name of the competent authority was not stated in the order of blacklisting dated 10.08.2015 which was passed by the Executive Director, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that even the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors dated 15.07.2015 was not available to the appellant when the earlier writ petitions were filed and that the appellant could obtain a copy of the Minutes only on 14.09.2015 by making an application under the Right to Information Act.

10. Thus, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner/appellant is barred by principles of constructive res judicata from raising the plea of the competence of the Managing Director to pass the order of blacklisting is unsustainable.

11. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for DMRC, while placing before this court a copy of the minutes of 13th Board Meeting held on