The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear mention of the proposed blacklisting action in the show cause notice, as well as the need to adhere to principles of natural justice, fair play, and proportionality in blacklisting cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent show cause notice in Lr.No.CE/TTPS/SE/P&A/EA/F.OT No.1959-M/Po No.8273-N/D No. /18, dated .01.2018 and consequent impugned order of the second respondent banning the petitioner firm participating in future tenders of TENGEDCO, TANTRANSCO and TNEB Ltd for the next five years in Lr.No.CE/TTPS/EA/F.Enq.1959-M/D.1826/19, dated 02.08.2019 and quash the same.)

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018 and the consequential final order, dated 02.08.2019 passed by the second respondent banning the petitioner from participating in the future tenders of TANGEDCO, TANTRANSCO and TNEB Limited for the next five years.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition:

3. The second respondent had floated a tender in the year 2014 and one M/s.BMW Steels Limited had satisfied the BQR conditions. M/s.BMW Steels Limited in the principal offer letter, dated 11.02.2014 addressed to the Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, has mentioned that they had authorised the petitioner to get order on their behalf and also authorised them for further negotiation and clarification with the respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, Tuticorin Thermal Power Station issued a purchase order, dated 21.06.2014 in favour of the petitioner.

4. According to the petitioner, the supplies effected for Tuticorin Thermal Power Station is only in accordance with the purchase order. However, M/s.BMW Steels Limited, the successful bidder, who has authorised the official respondents to issue purchase order in favour of the petitioner, has lodged a complaint on 27.10.2015 against the petitioner, after issuance of the purchase order in favour of the petitioner.

5. The second respondent on the basis of the said complaint had issued a show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018, levelling various charges with regard to the supplies effected by the petitioner and sought for a reply from the petitioner. The petitioner has issued a reply on 17.01.2018 to the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018 denying all the allegations and has sought for a personal hearing to putforth the petitioner's contentions with available materials. The second respondent has passed a final order, dated 02.08.2019 banning the petitioner from participating in future tenders for the next five years. The petitioner has challenged the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018 as well as the final order, dated 02.08.2019 banning them from participating in future tenders for the next five years in this Writ Petition.

6. The petitioner has challenged the show cause notice as well as the final order on the following grounds:

(a) The order of blacklisting for a period of five years was disproportionate.

(b) In the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018, the proposed blacklisting for five years or any other period was not indicated, which is mandatory.

(c) The alleged enquiry report reflected in the show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018, was not furnished to the petitioner.

7. In response to the contentions of the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit. The contentions of respondents 1 and 2 are as follows:

(a) There is ample evidence to prove that the petitioner had tampered with the original tender cover received from M/s.BMW Steels Limited and attached a fabricated “Undertaking in lieu of EMD” and an invalid NSIC, thereby cheating TANGEDCO as well as M/s.BMW Steels Limited.

(b) The petitioner having obtained the purchase order under the shield of M/s.BMW Steels Limited, did not place any reciprocal orders with M/s.BMW Steels Limited and the petitioner has imported the materials from China without the knowledge of its Principal, M/s.BMW Steels Limited. The genuineness of undertaking in lieu of EMD, Authorisation letter, test certificate is questionable.

(c) On a complaint given by M/s.BMW