Sujit Narayan Prasad, ACJ

1. The instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 19.07.2024 issued under the Signature of Deputy Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, by which, the petitioner has been debarred for a period of one year.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under:

3. Notice inviting tender being e-tender 3375 dated 2^nd July, 2022 was published for supply of certain medicines.

The petitioner participated in the tender and was declared successful. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner entered into an on 15th April, 2023 for supply of number of medicines for a period of two years.

4. Thereafter, supply order dated 21.04.2023 was issued to the petitioner directing him to supply a list of medicines, which the petitioners supplied. But vide letter dated 28.10.2023 the petitioner was informed that certain medicines were not in accordance with the specifications and were found to be spoilt, as such he was asked to submit clarification and replace the medicines.

5. It has been submitted that petitioner took immediate steps and replaced the medicines which were found to be spoiled. However, the petitioner informed the respondent- authority that the role of the petitioner is only to supply medicines procured from renowned manufacturers, who are neither blacklisted nor rejected by the respondent. But in spite of that notice dated 9th March, 2024 was issued to the petitioner whereby it has been stated that certain medicines were found to be below standards, which are contrary to Clause 13 and 14 of the agreement.

6. The petitioner replied the said show cause on the very same day i.e., on 9^th March,2024 but the same being found not satisfactory impugned order dated 19^th July, 2024 was passed by which the petitioner was blacklisted/debarred for a period of one year.

7. It is evident from the factual aspect that in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender for supply of medicine to the hospitals having been controlled by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, the petitioner was issued work order. The medicines, which were supplied by the petitioner was found to be contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement and as such a show cause notice was issued asking the petitioner to explain as to why action be not taken for violating the clause/condition no. 13 and 14 of the bid document. The petitioner replied stating therein that no condition of the agreement has been flouted by the petitioner.

8. It has been stated that the respondent-authority, without taking into consideration reply submitted by the petitioner passed the impugned order.

9. It has further been submitted that impugned order otherwise also suffers from error as the petitioner was not knowing about the fact that the said show cause notice was with respect to debarring the petitioner for any period for making supply of the medicines to the hospitals.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents-RMC has submitted that the allegation is very serious. It has further been submitted that it is not a case that without affording opportunity the impugned order has been passed rather show cause was issued, which has been responded by the petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the impugned order suffers from no error and as such the same may not be interfered with.

11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading made in the writ petition as also impugned order passed by the respondent-authority.

12. The issue on merit has been raised regarding impropriety of the impugned order and in addition to that the issue of violation of principles of natural justice has also been raised.

13. It has been contended that the show cause cannot be said to be proper since there is no reference of punishment said to be inflicted i.e., debarring from supply of medicine, save and except, the reference has been made in the show cause that acti