JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondents, i.e., Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (‘ONGC’).

2. By filing this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 23.5.2006 whereby it was banned from business dealings with ONGC on permanent basis as well as orders dated 1.8.2007 and 15.7.2014 whereby aforesaid order of banning was reiterated on reconsideration.

3. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Sivasagar in the State of Assam. It is engaged in the business of providing oil field related services, such as, drilling, stimulation, coil tubing operation and maintenance of acid pumping unit, nitrogen pumping unit, etc., all relating to exploration and drilling of crude oil.

4. It is stated that petitioner had good working relationship with ONGC and had executed the contract relating to operation and maintenance of three acid pumping units and one coil tubing operation pursuant to NIT bearing No. ER/NZR/OBG/IMP/SCON/WSS/5/57/94-95 which was floated during the year 1996.

5. A show-cause notice dated 15.11.2005 was issued to the petitioner by the ONGC, Assam Asset, Eastern Region, Nazira on 15.11.2005 alleging that petitioner had succeeded in getting the aforesaid contract on the basis of false certificate of acid pumping unit operation. In this connection, a complaint was made before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which was registered as RC 12(A) 2001-SHG relatable to Misc. Case No. 03/2004 (State v. Gyan Singh) before the court of Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati. CBI submitted final report before the court of Special Judge stating that materials on record were insufficient to try the accused persons in a criminal proceeding. Court of Special Judge vide order dated 9.8.2004 accepted the final report submitted by the CBI by holding the same to be justified.

6. Be it stated that against the show cause notice, petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court being WP(C) No. 8578/2005. However, on the ground that petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice and considering the facts of the case, impugned order dated 23.5.2006 was passed by the ONGC banning business dealings with the petitioner and associated firms on permanent basis. However, it was made subject to outcome of WP(C) No. 8578/2005.

7. It appears that petitioner had assailed legality and correctness of the aforesaid order dated 23.5.2006 which was virtually an order of blacklisting by instituting a fresh writ proceeding before this court. The said round of litigation ended with an order by the Division Bench granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the ONGC for reconsideration of the impugned order. It was observed that the earlier writ petition WP(C) No. 8578/2005 had become infructuous. Following the same, petitioner submitted representation before the ONGC which was, however, rejected by order dated 1.8.2007 holding that there was no ground to modify the order dated 23.5.2006.

8. This again led to another round of litigation. Petitioner filed WP(C) No. 4622/2007 assailing such reiteration of the impugned order, which was finally dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.4.2013. Against such dismissal, petitioner preferred a writ appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 124/2013. The Division Bench took the view that denial of the petitioner that the certificate was false was not considered by the ONGC before passing the impugned order of blacklisting. Therefore, a view was taken that the matter would require fresh consideration by the ONGC. Accordingly, by order dated 13.5.2013, appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the ONGC for fresh consideration.

9. On remand and after reconsideration, ONGC passed the order