The main legal point established is the requirement to apply principles of natural justice and fair play in administrative decisions, and the necessity of providing cogent reasons for decisions affecting the rights of the parties involved.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 7.4.2015, whereby the petitioner is banned from participating in the bidding process for any of the GAIL's tender (s) in future for a period of three years.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner is a contractor and doing business in the name of M/s S.K. Jain. The respondent No. 2 invited tender for the work of hiring of vehicle for GAIL, Vijaypur. Copy of invitation for bids (IFB) dated 20.3.2013 is Annexure P-2. The petitioner submitted his tender by e-tendering process. Admittedly, Annexure P-4, is the instructions of the bidding process and award of contract. The petitioner submitted his tender and also submitted Form F-6A. Thereafter, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 17.6.2014 to the petitioner. On the strength of clause 40 of instruction to bidders (ITB), it is alleged that the petitioner has given false information deliberately. It is concealed/suppressed by him that the petitioner is already placed in the negative list of M/s Engineering India Ltd. (a Government of India Enterprises) w.e.f. 4.2.2013. In view of wrong disclosure/suppression, it is contended that the petitioner has violated clause 40 aforesaid and, therefore, appropriate action can be taken against him. The petitioner, in turn, submitted his detailed reply dated 2.7.2014. Thereafter, respondents passed the impugned order dated 7.4.2015 (Annexure P-1).

3. Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assailed this order mainly on the ground that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and an example of non-application of mind. By taking this Court to the reply to show cause notice dated 2.7.2014, it is contended that the conclusion drawn by the respondents is not supported by any reasons. He relied on certain judgments. In addition, he submits that by no stretch of imagination the petitioner can be held to be ineligible. The respondents have nowhere defined the meaning of "negative list". The categorical objection taken by the petitioner is also not dealt with. Apart from this, Engineering India Ltd. has already removed the name of the petitioner from negative list by order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P/8).

4. Per Contra, Shri S.S. Bansal relied on the short reply filed in this matter. He contends that clauses 2.1, 2.2, 8, 10.2, 40, 40.1 and 40.5 give right to the employer to ban the petitioner because of furnishing false declaration. He supported the action taken by the respondents.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. Clause 40 of ITB makes it obligatory upon the bidder to furnish complete and correct information/documents required for evaluation of his bid. If such information/document is found to be false/forged, it may become a reason for rejection of the bid and forfeiture of earnest money. It further provides that such bidder/contractor shall be put on black list/holiday list. This will debar him from further business with GAIL. Clause 2 of ITB prescribes "eligible bidders". Clause 2.2 provides that a bidder shall be eligible if he is not put on "holidays" by GAIL or "black list" by any other Government Department/Public Sector Enterprises.

7. The pivotal question raised by the petitioner is whether the action of respondents in banning the petitioner from participating in the bidding process is justified? Whether the petitioner was rightly banned for not disclosing that his name was in the 'negative list' of M/s Engineering India Ltd.?

8. It is apt to quote the relevant paras from the reply of the petitioner (Annexure P/10), which read as under:-

"At the relevant time, i.e. on 11.04.2013 when the undersigned gave declaration under Form 6-A, the undersigned was not under any liquidation or any Court Receivership or similar proceeding and Bankruptcy. Further, the undersigned was no