A.S. Doctor ORDER
1. We have heard Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Mokashi, learned counsel representing respondents 1 to 4.
2. Instituting this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been laid by the petitioner to an order dated 28th February 2023 to the extent the said order debars/blacklists the petitioner from participating in the bid process of catering licence of a contract for any Zonal Railways-IRCTC for a period of 5 (five) years. Under challenge is another order dated 12th April 2023, whereby the debarment order has been reiterated by the Divisional Commercial Manager (FM), Mumbai Central.
3. Impeaching these two orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before passing an order of debarment/blacklisting, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing; neither was he served with any notice requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be debarred/blacklisted for participating in the bidding process of catering licences/contracts. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr. MANU/SC/0858/2020 : 2020 13 SCR 1175 and the judgment in the case of Isolators and Isolators through its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Anr. MANU/SC/0399/2023 : 2023 4 SCR 445, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that any order of debarment or blacklisting has to be necessarily preceded by a show cause notice and giving an opportunity to the person concerned and in absence of such an opportunity/show cause notice, the debarment order cannot be justified.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents has submitted that before passing the impugned orders, two notices were issued to the petitioner, the one dated 7th December 2022 and the other dated 19th May 2022. In this view, the submission is that it cannot be complained of by the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice. The submission, thus, is that the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also perused the record available before us.
6. When we peruse the order dated 28th February 2023, what we find is that the said order mentions about show cause notice dated 7th December 2022 and a reminder notice dated 19th May 2022. The notice dated 7th December 2022 is on record, a perusal thereof clearly shows that the said notice did not require the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why the petitioner may not be debarred/blacklisted; rather, this notice only required the petitioner to make deposit of the licence fees. Having regard to the contents of the aforesaid notice dated 7th December 2022 and the one dated 19th May 2022, which was referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the opinion that the said show cause notice and the reminder are not the one which ought to have preceded by debarment orders. As a matter of fact, the notices, as observed above, did not call upon the petitioner to show cause why debarment order may not be passed. Any notice issued requiring the petitioner to make deposit of the licence fees does not fulfill the requirement of show cause notice which is necessarily to be issued before passing of an order of debarment/blacklisting. In absence of such notice, we are of the considered opinion ........