ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 17-03-2023 Re: I.A. No. 2 of 2019 Heard I.A. No. 2 of 2019 after arguing some time, learned counsel for intervenor petitioner seeks permission to withdraw I.A. No. 2 of 2019.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2019, stands dismissed as withdrawn.

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“For issuance of order, direction or writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing/ setting aside the order dated 25.06.2019 contained in letter no. 2124 issued under the signature of respondent no. 5 The Chief of Administration, The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation whereby and where under the petitioner company has been blacklisted forever.

And during the pendency the of the present writ the operation of order dated 25.06.2019 contained in letter no. 2124 issued under the respondent no. 4, The Chief of Administration, The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation may be stayed.

ii. For issuance of order, direction or writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing the respondents to release the remaining payment amounting to Rs. 47,61,123 for the work done by the petitioner company.

iii. For any other orders or direction which your Lordship may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.”

The concerned respondent floated tender for Back Office Automation and Web Portal Development for Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for short “ BSRTC”). The work order was issued in favour of petitioner on 03.03.2014, thereafter, formalities have been completed for execution of the work. The petitioner could not execute the work within the time limit stipulated, thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, time was extended from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019. Even thereafter, the petitioner could not complete the allotted work within the extended period of time. In the result, the concerned respondent issued show cause notice relating to blacklisting. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply to the two show cause notices (Annexure - P18 dated 25.04.2019). However, the concerned authority after taking note of the facts of the case read with the show cause notices and replies on behalf of the petitioner, proceeded to pass orders for blacklisting the petitioner forever on 25.06.2019, hence, the present petition.

From perusal of reply to the show cause notice and impugned order of blacklisting forever, it is evident that there is no consideration of each of the contentions raised by the petitioner against show cause notices. The concerned authority has merely reiterated the contents of the show cause notices and has not analyzed each of the contentions stated in the reply to the show cause notices. Therefore, prima facie it is a non- speaking order. The concerned authority has resorted to only formality of issuing show cause notices and obtaining explanation and thereafter, proceeded to pass order for blacklisting forever.

Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd.

and Another V. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SSC 496 in para 47 it is held as under:-

“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision - maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of nat