The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 670 of 2018 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its Managing Director (Administration) Sri Bimlendu Kumar, s/o Jagdish Pandey, r/o Flat No.2C, Shanti Apartment, Dangra Toli, Lalpur, PO & PS Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, at Magadh-Amrapali Area, PO Dakra, PS Sakra, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). …. Appellants - Versus- M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV), having its office at Indicon Viva, 3rd Floor- 53A, Leela Roy Sarani, Gariahat, Kolkata, PO & PS Gariahat, District Kolkata (West Bengal), through its Managing Director Sri Lila Dhar Agarwala, s/o Banowari Lal Agarwalla, r/o 52/2B, Hazra Road, Kolkata, PO Kolkata, PS Ballyganj, District Kolkata (West Bengal) ….. Respondent With LPA No. 672 of 2018 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its Managing Director (Administration) Sri Bimlendu Kumar, s/o Jagdish Pandey, r/o Flat No.2C, Shanti Apartment, Dangra Toli, Lalpur, PO & PS Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, at Magadh-Amrapali Area, …. Appellants PO Dakra, PS Sakra, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). - Versus- M/s United Coal Carriers, having its office at Main Road, Jharia, PO & PS Jharia, District Dhanbad, through its Proprietor, Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwalla, s/o late Ram Lal Agarwalla, r/o Main Road, Jharia, PO & PS Jharia, District ….. Respondent Dhanbad (Jharkhand) With LPA No. 673 of 2018 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its Managing Director (Administration) Sri Bimlendu Kumar, s/o Jagdish Pandey, r/o Flat No.2C, Shanti Apartment, Dangra Toli, Lalpur, PO & PS Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, at Magadh-Amrapali Area, 2 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters PO Dakra, PS Sakra, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). …. Appellants - Versus-
Legal Reasoning
M/s Vinayak Support Service Pvt. Ltd., having its office at 2F, Vatika Apartment, Line Tank Road, Ranchi, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District Ranchi, through its Authorised Signatory, Sri Vinit Agarwal, s/o Vinod Agarwal, r/o Harihar Singh Road, Bariatu, PO & PS Bariatu, District Ranchi ….. Respondent (Jharkhand) With LPA No. 677 of 2018 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, PO, GPO & PS Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its Managing Director (Administration) Sri Bimlendu Kumar, s/o Jagdish Pandey, r/o Flat No.2C, Shanti Apartment, Dangra Toli, Lalpur, PO & PS Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, at Magadh-Amrapali Area, …. Appellants PO Dakra, PS Sakra, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). - Versus- M/s BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Indicon Viva, 3rd Floor-53A, Leela Roy Sarani, Gariahat, Kolkata, PO & PS Gariahat, District Kolkata (West Bengal), through its Managing Director, Sri Lila Dhar Agarwala, s/o Banowari Lal Agarwalla, r/o 52/2B, Hazra Road, Kolkata, PO Kolkata, PS Ballyganj, District Kolkata (West Bengal) ….. Respondent ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants For the Respondent ------ : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate ------
Decision
O R D E R 1st March 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J. I.A. No. 11163 of 2018 [in LPA No. 670 of 2018], I.A. No. 11157 of 2018 [in LPA No. 672 of 2018], I.A. N o. 11159 of 2018 [in LPA No. 673 of 2018], and I.A. No. 11160 of 2018 [in LPA No. 677 of 2018], These applications have been filed by M/s Central Coalfields Limited (in short, CCL) under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 67 days in preferring the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. 3 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters 2. Mr. Amit Kr. Das, the learned counsel for the CCL refers to the statements made in these interlocutory applications to submit that sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants for condonation of delay and moreover the contentious issues one of which pertains to powers of the writ Court in the contractual matters, the delay of 67 days in filing these Letters Patent Appeals may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV) and its constituents which are the writ petitioners would submit that these Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred on frivolous ground only to harass the writ petitioners, without raising any substantial question of law. 4. We have examined the matter keeping in mind that generally parties should be permitted to contest the matter on merits. We have also kept in mind the stand taken by the employer which has professed to act in accordance with the stipulations under the NIT and General Conditions of Contract (in short, GCC). 5. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matters, we are inclined to condone the delay of 67 days in preferring each of the Letters Patent Appeals and, accordingly, I.A. Nos. 11163, 11157, 11159 and 11160 of 2018 are allowed. LPA No. 670 of 2018 with LPA No. 672 of 2018 with LPA No. 673 of 2018 with LPA No. 677 of 2018 6. The CCL has questioned the legality of the writ Court's order dated 31st July 2018 passed in a batch of writ petitions preferred by M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV) and its constituents. By this order, the writ Court has quashed the impugned communication dated 14th March 2017 by which an order of forfeiture of EMD, cancellation of contract and debarment for 3 years has been passed. 7. The letter dated 14th March 2017 reads as under: Central Coalfields Limited Office of the General Manager Magadh-Amrapali Area Akashdeep, Main Road Dakra P.O. Dakra-829210 Distt. Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters Ref. No. GM (M-A)/Coal Trans. 02 Yrs/AMP/2016-17/2347 Dated 14.03.2017 To M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL(JV) Indicon Viva, 3rd Floor, 53A, Leela Roay Sarani, Gariahat, Kolkata-700019(WB) 02 Trans. issued by Staff ORDER FOR CONCELLATION OF CONTRACT, FOREFITURE OF EMD AND DE- BARRING BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF 03(THREE) YEARS. Sub:- Cancellation of contract, forfeiture of EMD and de-barring business for a period of 03(Three) years. Ref:- (1) Tender Notice No. GM(CMC)/Magadh- Amrapali/2016/05 dated 20/05/2016 issued by GM(CMC) CCL, Ranchi and conveyed vide reference No. GM(CMC)/Magadh & Amrapali/2016/37 dated 04.10.2016 to G.M. Magadh Amrapali Area, for the work "Loading & Transportation of Coal from surface stock of Amrapali OCP to CHP-CPP-Piparwar/ Dump yard via Amrapali Coal Stock- W/B-Khurd river Sradhu- Kosaha-Massilong- Raham- Polilce Chowki- Kalyanpur-Karo W/B- CHP-CPP- Piparwar(Route -1) and via Amrapali Coal Stock - W/B- Kumrang-kalan Check post Shahid Chowk- Telipara-Jora Talab-Kalyanpur-Karo-W/B CHP-CPP- PPR(Route -2) including water spraying along transport road & covering the Coal of trucks/tippers with tripal/tarpoline for a period of (two) years." (2) LOA No.:- GM (M-A)/AMP/Coal years/2016/1360 dated 05.10.2016 Officer(Mining) M-A Area. (3) Correspondences with M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV) to submit Performance Security Deposit in the form of BG/DD and to start the work. i) GM (M-A)/Coal Trans./AMRAP to CHP-PPR/2016-17/1390 dated 12.10.2016 of SO (Mining)M-A Area. ii) GM (M-A)/Coal Trans./AMRAP to CHP-PPR/2016-17/1449 dated 20.10.2016 of SO (Mining) M-A Area. iii) PO (A)/Maintenance/2016-17/961 dated 20.10.2016 of PO, Amrapali OCP iv) PO (A)/PD/Coal Trans/2016-17/976 dated 28.10.2016 of PO, Amrapali OCP v) PO (A)/PD/Coal Trans-2016-17/979 dated 29.10.2016 of PO, Amrapali OCP (15 days Notice) vi) GM (M-A)/AMP/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV)/2016/1089 dated 24.11.2016 of PO, Amrapali OCP vii) GM(M-A)AMP/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV)/2016/904 dated 06.12.2016 of SO (Mining) M-A viii)GM (M-A)/AMP/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV)/2016/1746 dated 13.12.2016 of SO (Mining) M-A (4) 15 days' Notice No. PO (A)/PD/Coal Trans/2016-17/979 dated 29.10.2016 issued by Engineer In-charge/Project Officer, Amrapali OCP. Dear Sir Whereas the above subject work was awarded to you vide LOA No.GM(M-A)/AMP/Coal Trans. 02 years/2016/1360 dated 05.10.2016 issued by Staff Officer(Mining) M-A Area for a period of Contract of 2 years. As per Terms of NIT, GTC and LOA, you were requested again and again to deposit Performance Security Deposit (1" part) within 28 days of issuance of LOA. Even after that in the essence of natural justice 5 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters you were asked to submit Performance Security Deposit (1" part) vide letter No.GM (M-A)/AMP/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV)/2016/1746 dated 13.12.2016 referred above with caution that last date will be 14.12.2016 otherwise we will be compelled to forfeit EMD, cancel the Contract and de-bar you for a minimum period of I(one) year for participating in any tender process of CCL. Even after that you didn't submit the Performance Security and not even started the work. Whereas a 15 days' Notice was also issued vide letter No. PO (A)/PD/Coal Trans/2016-17/979 dated 29.10.2016 issued by Engineer In-charge/Project Officer, Amrapali OCP. Again a final Notice for submission of BG was issued vide letter No. GM (M- A)/AMP/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV)2016/1089 dated 24.11.2016 by Engineer In-charge/Project Officer, Amrapali OCP. Even after that and issuance of number of letters mentioned in pre- page neither you started the work nor submitted Performance Security Deposit (1" part) in the form of BG/DD. Whereas, the provisions under Clause 4.2, 4.3 and 6.1 of GTC and NIT, includes the following action against you for such failure in the contract. 1.0 Forfeiture of EMD 2.0 Cancellation of the Contract 3.0 Debarring for participating in future tenders for a minimum period of 1 (one) year. 4.0 Any other action in accordance with the terms & conditions of NIT. The relevant Clauses (Clause No. 4.2, 4.3 & 6.1 of GTC) are quoted below:- Quote 4. PERFORMANCE SECURITY/SECURITY DEPOSIT 4.2 Performance Security (First Part of Security Deposit) should be 5% of annualized value of Contract amount and should be submitted within 28 days of issue of LOA by the successful bidder in any of the form given below:- > A Bank Guarantee in the form given in the bid document from any scheduled Bank. The BG issued by outstation bank shall be operative at its' local branch at or its' branch at Ranchi. > Govt. Securities, FDR (Schedule Bank) or any other form of deposit stipulated by the owner and duly pledged in favour of owner. > Demand Draft drawn in favour of Central Coalfields Limited on any Schedule Bank payable a at its Branch at Ranchi. 4.3 If Performance Security is provided by the successful bidders Guarantee, it shall be issued either:- (i) At Bidder's option by a Schedule Bank or (ii) By a Foreign Bank located in India and accepted to the employer. The validity of the Bank Guarantee shall be for a period of one year or ninety days beyond the period of contract or extended period of contract (if any), whichever is more. Failure of the successful bidder to comply with the requirement as above shall constitute sufficient ground for cancellation of the award for work and forfeiture of the bid security. Additionally, the company reserves the right to debar such defaulting bidder from participating in future bids for a minimum period of 12 (twelve) months. 6 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters 6. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF CONTRACT-EXTENSION THEREOF DEFAULTS & COMPENSATION FOR DELAY. 6.1 If the contractor, without reasonable cause or valid reason, commits default in commencing the execution of the work within the aforesaid date, the company shall, without prejudice to any other right or remedy, be at liberty, by giving 15 days notice in writing to the contractor to commence the work, failing which to forfeit the Earnest Money deposited by him. Additionally, the Company will reserve the right to debar such defaulting Contractors from in future tenders for a minimum period of 1(one) year. Unquote In view of Terms & Conditions of the NIT, the CCL Management has taken decision to take the following penal actions which will come into force immediately without any further Notice/information:- 1. To cancel the work awarded to M/s BPPL-UCC- VSSPL (JV) vide LOA No. GM (M- AYAMP/Coal Trans. 02 years/2016/1360 dated 05.10.2016 issued by Staff Officer(Mining) M-A Area. 2. Forfeiture of EMD amounting to Rs. 78,53,700/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakh Fifty three thousand and Seven hundred) only. 3. To debar M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV) and (1) M/s BLA Project Pvt. Lad C) My United Coal Carriers and (3) M/s Vinayak Support Services Pvt. Lid for a period of $3 (THREE) years from participating in future Tenders in CCL in individual capacity or a Joint Venture. In addition, all such individuals/firms/Companies/Associates/Vs who are the "Persons" as defined in Section- 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 of any such debarred Party, where in the words "ASSESSEE" is to be replaced with the word "debarred Party" shall also remain de-barred for a period of "THREE" years.” 4. Further in case any of above mentioned debarred party or any persons mentioned above has already participated in tender or it's to be awarded the same participation shall not be considered and shall be rejected forthwith. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Yours faithfully, Sd/- General Manager Magadh-Amrapali Area Copy to:- 1. The Director (T)(Oprn), CCL Ranchi. 2. The CVO, CCL Ranchi. 3. The GM/T.S to CMD, CCL Ranchi. 4. The General Manager (CMC), CCL Ranchi: - May kindly communicate to all concerned. 5. The CGM (Oprn), CCL Ranchi. 6. The General Manager (Fin) CCL Ranchi. 7. All Area General Managers, CCL. 8. Office copy. 7 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters 8. This order of 14th March 2017 was challenged by M/s BPPL- UCC-VSSPL (JV) and its constituents by filing separate writ petitions vide W.P.(C) Nos. 7002, 7003, 7015 and 7019 of 2017, which have been allowed in the following terms: “11. Moreover, on perusal of Clause 14.5 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Instruction to Bidder (ITB) which is the part of NIT, it appears that in the event of failure to submit performance security within the specified time, the respondent no. 2 could have proceeded to take action for debarment of the defaulting contractor from participating in future bids for minimum period of 12 months. Since the respondent no. 2 has taken decision to debar the petitioners in excess of the minimum term prescribed in the ITB, it was mandatory for him also to assign the specific reason for which the impugned letter has been issued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kulja Industries Ltd.” (supra) has held that the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. 12. Thus, the part of the impugned order contained in letter dated 14.03.2017, whereby the petitioners have been debarred from participating in future tender for three years, vitiates in law having been passed without assigning specific reason for taking such action against them. Moreover, on perusal of the record, it appears that one year has already elapsed since the date of issuance of the impugned letter. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served if the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass the order afresh in this regard. 13. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the part of the impugned order contained in letter dated 14.03.2017, whereby the petitioners have been debarred from participating in future tenders of CCL for three years is quashed and set-aside. So far the rest part of the impugned letter dated 14.03.2017 is concerned, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same before the competent court/forum in accordance with law, if so advised. 14. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 9. Briefly stated, e-Tender notice dated 20th May 2016 was issued by the CCL for certain works of loading, transportation, water spraying etc. for a period of two years. M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV) which has three constituents in M/s Vinayak Support Service Private Limited (VSSPL), M/s United Coal Carriers (UCC) and M/s BLA Projects Private Limited (BPPL) was awarded the work under the NIT. The JV has furnished EMD through bank guarantee amounting to Rs.78,53,700/- and in terms of the conditions of NIT the performance guarantee was required to furnish within 28 days from 5th October 2016 – LOA was issued on 5th October 2016. 10. Subsequently some dispute arose on account of protest by the villager under Route-1 and some portion of Route-2 falling within the private 8 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters road of National Thermal Power Corporation. According to the JV, it informed the CCL about the aforesaid problems but the CCL continued to insist on submission of the performance guarantee. In the meantime, there were certain communications between the parties before the show-cause notice vide letter dated 13th December 2016 was issued to the JV. 11. The letter dated 13th December 2016 is in the following terms: Central Coalfields Limited Office of the General Manager Magadh-Amraplai Area Akashdeep, Main Road Dakra PO Dakra-829210 Distt. Ranch. (Jharkhand) Ref. No. GM (M-A)/Amp/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL(JV)/2016/1746 Dated 13.12.2016 To M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL(JV) Indicon Viva, 3rd Floor, 53A, Leela Roay Sarani Gariahat, Kolkata-700019(WB) Sub: - Submission of BG Ref:- NIT No.:- GNM(CMC)/Magadh-Amrapali/2016/05 dated 20.05.2016 Ref No.:- PO(A)/PD/Coal Trans/2016-17/979 dated 29.10.2016 Ref No. GM (M-A)/Amp/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL(JV)/2016/1089 dated 24.11.2016 Ref No. GM (M-A)/Amp/BPPL-UCC-VSSPL(JV)/2016/904 dated 06/12/2016 Dear Sir, In reference to the above letters it is to inform you once again that the last and final date for submission of BG is 14/12/2016. You are requested to submit BG/DD as Performance Security on and before 14/12/2016 else we will be compelled to forfeit EMD, cancel the contrast and debar you for a period of one year for participating in any tender process of CCL. Yours faithfully Sd/- SO (Mining) Magadh Amrapali area Copy to:- 1. The General Manager (CMC), CCL, Ranchi 2. The General Manager, M-A Area 3. The Project Officer, CHP-CPP-PPR 4. The Area Sales Manager, M-A Area 5. The Area Finance Manager, M-A Area 6. Area Survey Officer (M-A Area) 12. After issuing the aforesaid notice to M/s BPPL-UCC-VSSPL (JV), the CCL has passed the order dated 14th March 2017 against the JV and the three constituents forfeiting EMD, cancelling the contract and blacklisting all of them for three years. 9 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters 13. Mr. Amit Kr. Das, the learned counsel for the CCL has referred to Clause-4.3 of GCC to submit that under the NIT the CCL has sufficient powers to pass an order of debarment for more than one year. It is submitted that the stipulation under Clause-4.3 of GCC provides the minimum period of debarment and not the maximum period for which a defaulter bidder can be blacklisted. 14. Clauses-4.2 and 4.3 are extracted hereinbelow: Govt. Securities, FDR (Scheduled Bank) or any other “4.2. Performance Security (first part of security deposit) should be 5% of annualized value of contract amount and should be submitted within 28 days of issue of LOA by the successful bidder in any of the form given below: • A Bank Guarantee in the form given in the bid document from any scheduled Bank. BG issued by outstation bank shall be operative at its local branch at.........or its Branch at Ranchi. • form of deposit stipulated by the owner. • Demand Draft drawn in favour of Central Coalfields Ltd on any Scheduled Bank payable at its local branch at............or its Branch at Ranchi. The Earnest Money/Bid Security deposited in the form of Bank Guarantee shall be duly discharged and returned to the contractor. The Earnest Money/Bid Security deposited in the form of Demand draft may be adjusted against the security deposit (Performance Security) at bidder's option. 4.3.If performance security is provided by the successful bidders in the form of Bank Guarantee it shall be issued either:- a) At Bidder's option by a Scheduled Indian Bank or b) By a foreign bank located in India and acceptable to the employer The validity of the Bank Guarantee shall be for a period of one year or ninety days beyond the period of contract or extended period of contract, whichever is more. Failure of the successful bidder to comply with the requirement as above shall constitute sufficient ground for cancellation of the award of work and forfeiture of the bid security. Additionally the company reserves the right to debar such defaulting contractor from participating in future bids for a minimum period of 12(twelve) months.” 15. Before the writ Court, the JV and its constituents raised a plea that the condition under Clause-4.3 for furnishing the performance guarantee within 28 days is hedged with certain conditions, one of the conditions must be that the work under the NIT was capable of performance on the date of issuance of LOA. However, the main contentions of the JV and its constituents are that (i) the order of debarment of three years for which a notice was issued indicating the proposed action of debarment for one year is arbitrary and (ii) the order of debarment of the constituents of the JV is per se illegal. 10 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters 16. The learned counsel for the respondent(s) has referred to the judgment in “Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.” (2014) 9 SCC 105 to submit that the notice for debarment must give a clear notice about the proposed action by the employer. The paragraph no.21 of “Gorkha Security Services” reads as under: “21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. 22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show- cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz: (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.” 17. No doubt the order of debarment has serious consequences for the persons who are engaged in the commercial transactions. In “Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others” (2014) 14 SCC 731, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that blacklisting has an effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for the purposes of gain. Therefore, considering the nature of the disability created by the order of blacklisting every employer is required to observe the rules of natural justice. In the matters of contract, fairness in action on the part of the employer must be observed. The 11 LPA No. 670 of 2018 with batch matters contention raised by the writ petitioners that while the notice dated 13 th December 2016 was issued for the proposed debarment of one year and the final order has inflicted debarment for three years must be accepted and held a sufficient reason for interfering with the order of debarment passed against the writ petitioners. We have a close glance at the notice dated 13th December 2016 which was issued only to the JV and having regard to the contents of a show-cause notice we have formed an opinion that the communication dated 13th December 2016 cannot even be called a show-cause notice. There is no factual foundation and no reference of the dispute between the parties. There is also no reference of the decision of a competent authority to reject the objections raised by the JV. Above all, there is no indication in the communication dated 13th December 2016 that a decision has been taken to debar the bidder. The communication dated 13th December 2016 simply extracts the relevant provisions under GCC. In our opinion, such a communication cannot be considered a show-cause notice. 18. Besides, the aforesaid issues, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter also for the reason that the writ Court has considered the matter in proper perspective and there is no ground to take a different view. 19. 20. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 1st March , 2023 RKM-AFR