JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. These three Special Civil Applications, though listed for admission, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they have been taken up for final disposal at this stage itself since they lie in a narrow compass.

2. The facts in these three petitions/applications are common and identical and as such they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts shorn off unnecessary details can be crystallized as under :

4. Petitioner is the proprietor of a construction company and carries on the business as Class-‘AA’ Government Contractor and Engineer and was awarded construction of SRP Group-I Cat B-104 (P+13) units at Lalbaug City Police Lane, Vadodara, for construction of police staff quarters including electrification, pursuant to which work orders came to be issued on 8.3.2019, 13.5.2019 and 18.5.2019 respectively. Pursuant to the same, petitioner is said to have mobilized men and materials, and has contended that due to the act of force majeure, namely the act of God, as well as on account of certain works which were to be executed by the respondents, having not been performed, resulted in the progress for commencement of the work, which ultimately has resulted in notices being issued to the petitioner and concluded by blacklisting the petitioner by the impugned order dated 21/22.3.2022 in all these petitions. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.

5. We have heard Mr.Paras K.Sukhwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Prithu Parimal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents nos.1 and 2. Perused the records.

6. It is the prime contention of Mr.Sukhwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that impugned order has been passed without issuing notice and as such it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on this sole ground itself the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned order and would contend that there is no infirmity in the said order, and for justification of the same, he would rely upon the notice dated 20.12.2021 issued to the petitioner, which has been referred to in the impugned order, to contend that said notice would satisfy the requirement of the petitioner having been notified, or in other words, the principles of natural justice having been adhered to by the respondent. As such, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, in support of his submissions and seeks for dismissal of the petitions.

8. The principle of natural justice protects a citizen from arbitrary administrative actions whenever his/her right to person or property is jeopardized. One of the objectives of giving a hearing in application of principles of natural justice is to see that any illegal action or decision does not take place. Any wrong order may adversely affect a person and it is essentially for this reason that a reasonable opportunity requires to be granted before passing an administrative order. The principles of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice. However, if the legislature specifically authorizes an administrative action without hearing, then except in cases of recognized exception, such action would be violative of principles of fair hearing and it has to be read into Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of U.P. vs. Vijay Kumar Tripathi, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 552, has held that though the rules permit award of censure entry without notice and hearing, yet the principles of natural justice should be read into such rules and no censure entry can be awarded without any notice and hearing. The principles of audi alteram partem is sine qua non of every civilized society. Corollary deduced from this rule is qui aliquid statue