M. R. Shah, J.

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner contractor has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned letter/communication/order dated 16.06.2016 (Annexure-A to the petition) by which the petitioner is blacklisted permanently.

2. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nut-shell are as under:

[2.1] That the petitioner herein is in the business of construction as Engineers and Contractors. That the respondent University floated two tenders being (1) Tender dated 28.02.2012 in Tender Notice No.20 and (2) Tender Notice No.11. That the petitioner participated in the said tenders and was found to be successful bidder and consequently the work was awarded to the petitioner. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that after the work orders were issued, due to defaults on the part of the respondent University and other events which were not within the control of the petitioner, the work got delayed. According to the petitioner the delay on the part of the University was brought to the notice of the respondent and the petitioner also requested the respondent to expedite the issue which is within his domain and within his scope of work. According to the petitioner nothing was fruitful and the respondent acted at its own pace, which resulted in delay. According to the petitioner, on earlier occasion the petitioner sought extension of time from the respondent University which was granted on every occasion. However, at the last occasion sought, the respondent communicated to the petitioner vide letters dated 22.05.2013 that the time for completion is not extended and the respondent is directed to terminate the contract as per Clause 3 of the tender conditions. According to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner never received any order terminating the contract. That thereafter vide letter/communication dated 11.06.2013 the petitioner was communicated that the petitioner is blacklisted for doing any work with the University. As the same was in breach of principles of natural justice, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.12335/2015 and one another. That vide order dated 04.11.2015, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.12335/2015 on the statement made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent University that a show-cause notice will be issued if the respondents are interested in proceeding against the petitioner for blacklisting and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in consonance with the principles of natural justice, fresh decision in accordance with law will be taken and according to the said statement the Division Bench disposed of the said petition by observing that in that view of the matter, grievance of the petitioner does not survive and in view of such arrangement, the order of blacklisting would not survive. That thereafter the respondent issued notice dated 12.01.2016 alleging inter alia that in view of termination of four weeks as per the conditions of contract, the petitioner is liable to be blacklisted. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the petitioner should not be blacklisted in view of the termination of the four weeks as per the conditions of contract. That the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice by reply dated 22.01.2016. From the reply it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that as such there is no order terminating the contract/works. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that none of the contracts referred to in the notice are terminated; mere instruction to terminate the contract does not amount to termination of contract; no notice, no opportunity of hearing nor any principle of natural justice has been followed by the University at any stage before the so-called termination as alleged i