JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 09.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2044 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the order of blacklisting dated 28.05.2021 has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

3. The brief facts as per the pleading which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder:

A notice inviting tender was issued by the respondent-BCCL on 23.06.2015 inviting application from reputed and experienced contractors for repairing of drain in upgradation colonies under CV Area of BCCL. The writ petitioner-appellant, along with other bidders, participated in the said bid in which the writ petitioner-appellant was declared successful being L-1. The Letter of Acceptance was issued in the year 2018 by which the work order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner-appellant on 16.10.2018.

According to the writ petitioner-appellant, no site plan was made available to it. It is the further grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant that after allocation of the site to the writ petitioner-appellant, fire bricks went out of stock in the entire BCCL area and as such, it requested the Area Civil Engineer, CV Area-XII, Barakar, BCCL-respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 20.08.2018 to allow it to use fly-ash bricks, but no response was given. Finally, the site/location plan was made available to the petitioner vide letter dated 07.07.2020, whereby it was instructed to start the work at the earliest. It is the further case of the writ petitioner-appellant that when the writ petitioner-appellant visited the actual site/location, it found several major issues at the site due to which it was not feasible for the petitioner to carry out the work. The writ petitioner-appellant informed the same to the competent authority of the respondent-BCCL vide its representation dated 15.09.2020, but nothing was done. However, one order was issued on 28.05.2021, by which the writ petitioner-appellant was debarred from participating in future tenders of BCCL for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance of the said letter. The writ petitioner-appellant, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 28.05.2021, approached to this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. (C) No. 2044 of 2021 mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

The respondent-BCCL appeared and agitated the ground of passing the order of black listing for 12 months, reason being that the writ petitioner-appellant who ought to have furnished the performance security within 28 days of issuance of LoA and would commence the work within 10 days of the issuance of the same but the performance security had not been furnished.

It is the case of the respondent-BCCL that it is the latches on the part of the writ petitioner-appellant in not furnishing the performance security, as such, the respondent-authorities after taking into consideration the specific clause to that effect, i.e., furnishing the performance security within the period of 28 days as has been stipulated under Clause 4.2 of the agreement, has taken the decision for debarment of the writ petitioner-appellant for participating in future tenders of the BCCL for a period of 12 months.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submission advanced on behalf of the parties, refused to interfere with the impugned order of blacklisting the writ petitioner-appellant for a period of 12 months against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

4. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that even accepting what has been said by the learned counsel for the re