Point of Law : Since other sister concerns are not before us in this appeal, liberty is given to appellant to move learned Single Judge by way of an appropriate action, albeit as per law.

JUDGMENT :

Shakdher, J.

1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

2. The above captioned matter was listed before us on 26.05.2022. At the request of Mr Apoorv Kurup, central government standing counsel for respondent No. 1/Union of India (UOI), we had directed that the matter be listed before us today i.e. 27.05.2022.

3. Mr Apoorv has returned with instructions. According to Mr Apoorv, respondent No. 1/UOI [which is represented by Ministry of Heavy Industries (in short “MHI”)] says debarment, which has been assailed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, is limited to the tenders floated by the MHI.

4. To be noted, the appellant has assailed before the learned Single Judge two communications dated 25.04.2022 and 29.04.2022, whereby, in effect, the appellant has been debarred from participating in future tenders/contract.

4.1. The appellant has raised several pleas in the writ action which is pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge. Inter alia, it is the assertion of the appellant i.e., the original writ petitioner that there has been a breach of the principles of the natural justice.

4.2. The appellant has taken the stand that the debarment communication has not been served upon it up-until now.

4.3. It is also the appellant’s contention that no hearing was granted. Quite obviously, respondent No. 1/UOI-MHI disputes this position.

4.4. These are issues which would require adjudication by the learned Single Judge.

5. However, what ails the appellant is the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby simply notice has been issued in the writ petition without rendering a decision in the appellant’s interlocutory application.

5.1. The appellant contends that because interim directions that were sought were not granted, the appellant is debarred from participating in the tenders issued by various State Governments and/or instrumentalities of the State. By way of illustration, our attention has been drawn to pages 53 and 300 of the case file.

6. Messrs Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi, learned senior advocates, who appear for the appellant, submit that the appellant’s bid will not be considered by any State Government or instrumentality of the State on account of the impugned debarment communication issued by respondent No. 1/UOI-MHI. In support of this plea, once again, by way of an illustration, our attention has been drawn to the tender issued by Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (in short “BEST”), Maharashtra. In particular, Messrs Rohatgi and Sethi have laid emphasis on Clause 7 of the said tender, which finds mention on page 57 of the case file.

“7) JBM ECOLIFE MOBILITY PVT. LTD. Based on the letter from Ministry of Heavy Industries, GOI dated 25/04/2022; the offer of the firm is not considered for evaluation. Hence, same is considered as "TECHNICALLY NON RESPONSIVE"

6.1. It is contended on the basis of the said clause that because MHI has issued the impugned debarment communication dated 25.04.2022, the appellant’s bid was declared as “Technically Non Responsive”.

6.2. To be noted, insofar as this tender is concerned, the deadline for preferring a bid has passed. However, as indicated above, there are other tenders in the offing. These are tenders, the brief details of which are listed out in Annexure A-6, which is appended on page 300 of the case file.

6.3. According to Messrs Rohatgi and Sethi, the tenders which are in offing are listed at serial Nos. 5 to 8 of the table set out in Annexure A-6. Besides this, Messrs Rohatgi and Sethi have placed before us the photocopies of the relevant pages of the tender documents concerning the aforementioned tenders.

6.4. From what has been shown to us, it is clear that the debarment by respondent No. 1/UOI-MHI would come in the way of the appellant’s tender/bids being considered.

6.5. It is, therefore, quite apparent to us that in order to ensure that the writ petit