Point of law: The threshold at which the High Court and the Court of Appeal could find the Ministry of Defence policy irrational was placed so high that it effectively excluded any consideration by the domestic courts of the question of whether the interference with the applicants' rights answered a pressing social need or was proportionate to the national security and public order aims pursued, principles which lie at the heart of the court's analysis of complaints under article 8 of the Convention.” In other words, the intensity of the review, in similar cases, is guaranteed by the twin requirements that the limitation of the right was necessary in a democratic society, in the sense of meeting a pressing social need, and the question whether the interference was really proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

“15...(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2020 (Annexure A hereto) passed by the Respondent, imposing a ban on the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the inquiry conducted against the petitioner company vide show cause notice dated 17th July 2020 (Annexure J hereto), in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to grant stay over the implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2020 (Annexure A hereto) passed by the Respondent, imposing a ban on the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer C above may kindly be granted.

(E) Be pleased to pass any other and further orders or reliefs as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be summarized as under:

“2.1 The writ-applicant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 [now governed by the Companies Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act 2013’)] and is engaged in the business of Software Services System Integration, E-Governance Solutions and Digital Transformation.

2.2 It appears that in August, 2019, the respondent-O.N.G.C. invited bids for the supply, installation and commissioning of seven high-end workstations with three years warranty vide the Tender No. D-31KC-19011. The period prescribed was from 23rd August, 2019 to 17th September, 2019.

2.3 It is not in dispute that upon opening of the financial bids, the price offered by the writ-applicants was found to be the lowest. However, a controversy cropped up as regards the Price Bid Format. The confusion that arose was whether the rates were to be submitted per unit or for all the seven units.

2.4 It appears that during the meeting convened on 05.11.2019 i.e. the date on which, the financial bids were opened, it was sought to be clarified on behalf of the writ-applicants before the O.N.G.C. that the rates quoted by them were on per unit basis. A letter was addressed by the O.N.G.C. dated 27.11.2019 awarding the contract in favour of the writ-applicants for a total price of Rs. 8,85,927/- [which was the unit price quoted by the writ-applicants].

2.5 The aforesaid was a rate quoted by the writ-applicants of a single unit and not the total price of the entire contract. From this point of time, the disputes arose between the parties.

2.6 It is also not in dispute that ultimately, the contract which was awarded in favour of the writ-applicants came to be cancelled and the O.N.G.C. had to issue a fresh tender notice.

2.7 The subject matter of challenge in the present writ-application is not the order cancelling or terminating the contract. The subject matter of challenge is the order passed by the O.N.G.C. blacklisting the writ-applicants for a period of six months. This period of six months has also expired. However, the writ-applicants want to pursue this litigation as according to them, if the order of blacklisting remains, then it would be a blemish on them for all times to come. In such circumstances, we are called upon to examine the legality and validity of the order passed by the O.N.G.C. blacklisting the writ-applicants.

2.8 We first start with the tender conditions. The condition no. 33.0 provides for putting the supplier on holiday on account of cancellation of the purchase order. Co