The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5344 of 2022 M/s Shailja Enterprises, a duly registered Proprietorship Firm, having registered Office at Plot No. III/A-6(T) 16 and 17, Bokaro Industrial Area, Balidih, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, through its proprietor namely Raj Kumar Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Late Jayram Singh, resident of Quarter No. 386, Sector-IX A, Street-2, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro Petitioner … … Versus 1. The Bokaro Steel Limited, through its Director In charge, having its office at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. 2. The Executive Director (Works) Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, having its office at P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 3. The Executive Director (P & A), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, having its office at P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 4. The Chief General Manager (Services), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, having its office at P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 5. M/s M- Junction, a Company registered under the Companies Act, through its Director, having its office at Godrej Water Site, Tower- V, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 5, Block-DP, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091, P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, District Kolkata, (West Bengal). … … Respondents For the Petitioner For the Resp. Nos. 1-4 --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Rajarshi Singh, Advocate : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mohit Mukul, Advocate --- For the Resp. No. 5 13/16.05.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “1(a) For restraining the respondent BSL and its Authorities from taking any adverse coercive action as per the threat given by the respondent M-Junction in its email communication dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure-7) and further communications vide e-mail dated 08.10.2022 and 10.10.2022 (Annexure- 8[Series]) and so on, stating therein that once both the stages of Auction process i.e. Bid Seal Process & Reverse Auction Process is over, even the mistaken price quoted (which is about 90% below than schedule Estimated price) will have to be treated as a final and the petitioner is bound by the same. (not pressed) 1(b) To quash the email communication dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure-7) made by the respondent M-Junction to the 2 invoke the guideline petitioner rejecting the clarification/representation/objection dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure-5) made before the conclusion of Auction Process, to treat the mistakenly quoted price as unacceptable and/or to treat the lacs as crore and/or to for clause-10 of accordingly rescheduling/re-launching the online price negotiation process. (not pressed) 1(c) For further direction upon the respondents BSL to favorably consider the representations dated 15.10.2022 (Annexure-10 Series) and to accordingly discharge the petitioner from proposed adverse action, if any, which is eminent in the given facts of the case; since there is no willful mistake or misrepresentation on part of the petitioner in quoting mistaken price in sealed bid process. (not pressed) 1(d) For quashing of impugned ex-parte order bearing reference No. CCW/2022/3927 dated 26.11.2022 as well as amendment order bearing reference No. CCW/2022/3946 dated 03.12.2022 both issued under the signature of AGM (Contract)- Cell-Works of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City (Annexure- 14 series) , whereby without any prior show cause notice, the petitioner has been declared ineligible to submit bids for all future contracts till 25.11.2023/further orders, amounting to capital punishment of debarment, which is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional beside principle of natural Justice. (Added vide order dt- 14.12.2022 passed in I.A. No. 11590/2022).” 3. Vide order dated 16.02.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner had confined the prayer in the writ petition only to the extent of the relief at para-1(d) of the writ petition, which is quoted
Legal Reasoning
above. 4. The foundational facts of the case are not in dispute. 5. The case as it appears from the records is as under: - a. The respondent No. 1 issued tender for Shift Management, ASP (Amonium Sulphate Plant), BSL, having estimated value of Rs. 1,95,68,380.00/-. b. The tender process was assigned to one agency (respondent No. 5) and it was to be conducted in two stages; Stage-I was relating to Bid Sealed Process and Stage-II was relating to Reverse Auction. c. The petitioner participated on 03.07.2022, with stipulation that its offer price shall be upward variation of 10%. d. The case of the petitioner is that in Phase-I, Bid Sealed Process, the petitioner instead of quoting the price at Rs. 2,15,25,218/- quoted the price at Rs. 21,52,518/- due to typographical error and as per the tender document, the 3 amount being less than 90% of the current market price was deemed to have been rejected. e. The petitioner did not participate in the reverse auction. It is the case of the petitioner, that the mistake was communicated through phone. It is also the case that at the instance of respondent No. 5, the aforesaid mistake was also put on e-mail with a request to treat the figure of lakhs as figure in crores. Such request was made through e-mail sent at 13.55.46 GMT on 05.09.2022. f. The bid process ultimately failed. g. It is the case of the petitioner that upon completion of bid process, the respondent No. 5 had no further role to play and every communication was to be made only with SAIL (Steel Authority of India Limited). h. It is further case of the petitioner that in spite of failure of the bid process and the role of Respondent No. 5 being over, the respondent No. 5 issued communication dated 07.09.2022 stating that the request made by the petitioner for relaunching was not acceptable as the request was received after both the auction stages were over. i. The respondent No. 5 continued to send e-mails and certain e-mails were also issued by the respondent No. 5 asking the petitioner to accept the mistaken prices as final offer and send the price break-up to which the petitioner protested. j. However, upon receiving the communications from the respondent No. 5, the petitioner made detailed representation to the respondent-authorities of BSL all dated 15.10.2022 to look into the grievance of the petitioner and consider the fact that there was a human error which inadvertently occurred from the side of the petitioner while uploading the price in sealed bid process and accordingly, the petitioner was praying for favorable response. k. On 21.10.2022, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the reliefs sought for in para 1(a) to 1(c) of the writ petition. 4 l. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that SAIL/BSL floated fresh e-tender without invoking the clause-17 of the auction guideline. m. However, the respondent No. 5 reported SAIL/BSL that the petitioner is “L-1 back out case”, and the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had not even participated in the reverse auction. 6. The respondent no.5, before reporting to SAIL/ BSL that the petitioner is “L-1 back out case”, issued notice to the petitioner dated 22.11.2022 by referring to various clauses of auction notice, particularly clause 16 thereof, stating that the bids once placed cannot be cancelled/withdrawn and the bidders are bound by the prices, and requested the petitioner to accept the price as quoted by the petitioner online and submit revised price break up by next date by 12:00 Noon failing which, it will be understood that the petitioner has backed out from online quoted price and the respondent No. 5 will be finally compelled to inform BSL/SAIL to take suitable action against the event. 7. This communication dated 22.11.2022 was responded to by the petitioner vide letter dated 23.11.2022 by referring to this writ petition which was already filed before this Court on 21.10.2022 and it was stated that the matter was sub-judice before this Court and in furtherance thereof, the petitioner also submitted that in the public domain the principal employer had already aborted the earlier tender/auction process for the concerned work being satisfied with the position of the petitioner as bona fide and therefore, there was no occasion for respondent No. 5 to issue any offending communication dated 22.11.2022 asking the price break up of the already aborted tender/auction process. 8. Another communication dated 23.11.2022 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 5 asking the petitioner to submit the price break up of online sealed bid price and failing which it would be understood that the petitioner was backing out from the online quoted price and the respondent No. 5 would be compelled to inform BSL/SAIL to take suitable action against the event. 5 9. The petitioner responded on 23.11.2022 again by referring to the pending matter before this Court and reiterated that BSL/SAIL has aborted the earlier tender/auction process and had floated the new one and there was no meaning of asking the petitioner for consent/price break up with regard to the earlier tender process. 10. Another similar communication dated 24.11.2022 was issued by the respondent No. 5 to the petitioner which was again responded to by the petitioner vide communication dated 24.11.2022 mentioning that the matter was sub-judice before the High Court and the respondent No. 5 was making unnecessary communication. 11. Finally, the impugned order dated 26.11.2022 debarring the petitioner for one year (amended vide order dated 03.12.2012) was issued by BSL/SAIL by mentioning as follows: - published vide NIT “M/s SHAILJA ENTERPRISES had participated in BSL tender no. W01/OTE/1696/ 4010028403/7000016510 Dated 16.06.2022. The bidder participated in the Reverse Auction (RA) against the above NIT. As per report received from M/s mJunction Services Ltd. (RA service provider), M/s Shailja Enterprises emerged as L-1 bidder and was subsequently termed as L-1 back-out case. As per the provision of “Bid Security Declaration” signed and submitted by the bidder against the above NIT, the Competent Authority has decided to suspend M/s SHAILJA ENTERPRISES for the period of one year from being eligible till 25.11.2023/further orders in this respect.” future contracts to submit bids for all 12. This Court finds that there were continuous communications between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, wherein the respondent No. 5 was repeatedly asking the petitioner to accept the price quoted by the petitioner and the petitioner had been responding
Decision
by stating that the writ petition was pending before this Court and that the entire bid process was scrapped and that there was no occasion to accept the quoted price. 13. Ultimately, the BSL/SAIL issued impugned order dated 26.11.2022 (modified vide order dated 03.12.2022), by referring to the report received from respondent No. 5, declaring the petitioner as ‘L-1 back out case’ and consequently for one year the petitioner was declared ineligible to submit bids for all future contracts till 25.11.2023/ further orders in this respect. 6 14. The specific case of the petitioner is that there was no misrepresentation from the side of the petitioner resulting in any undue advantage to the petitioner and mere error committed by the petitioner in mentioning the bid amount did not entail any adverse consequences in terms of the Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealing which only contemplates adverse action after the award of the contract and any misconduct committed in execution thereof. 15. The specific argument of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and no-show cause was issued to the petitioner prior to debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender process. Apart from other judgment on the point of violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has specifically cited and has submitted that the law has been finally crystalized in the case of Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, para 16 to 20 and has submitted that these paragraphs deal with the necessity of serving show cause notice as a requisite of principles of natural justice. 16. Learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the prayer of the petitioner and have submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and there is no public element involved in this case. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no.5. Reliance has been placed on the judgement passed in the case of “Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others” reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 to submit that issuance of show-cause in the present case would be an empty formality. Further notice was issued by the respondent no.5 seeking the required breakup in terms of the tender stating that if the same is not provided, the petitioner will be treated as ‘back out case’ but the petitioner gave evasive replies. They submit that the required opportunity to explain the position before treating the petitioner as a ‘backout case’ was already granted and thus no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-issuance of separate show cause by the respondent nos.1 to 4 before passing the impugned orders. 7 Findings of this Court. Plea of alternative remedy. 17. So far as the plea of alternative remedy through arbitration as raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, is concerned, the arbitration agreement is with the respondent no.5 and the impugned orders of debarment have been passed by the respondent BSL/SAIL, though closely connected with the communications between the petitioner and respondent no.5. Primarily, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner is against SAIL/BSL. Therefore, the question of seeking relief against BSL/SAIL (Respondent nos. 1 to 4) through arbitration with Respondent no.5 may not be feasible for the petitioner. Moreover, the present case, interalia, relates to violation of the principles of natural justice and in a case of gross violation of Principle of Natural Justice writ remedy is not a bar [ Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 (para- 14)]. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to entertain this wit petition only to the extent it relates to allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. Plea of violation of the principles of natural justice. 18. This court finds that admittedly, no show cause was issued to the petitioner prior to suspending the petitioner from all future dealings with BSL/SAIL i.e. prior to passing the impugned order of debarment dated 26.11.2022 (modified vide order dated 03.12.2022) much less any show-cause by the authority who has passed the order of debarment. 19. The order of debarment dated 26.11.2022 (modified vide order dated 03.12.2022) was permitted to be challenged in this writ petition itself and consequently, inter alia, para 1(d) has been inserted. Further vide order dated 16.02.2023 the petitioner has confined his relief only to the prayer made in para 1(d) of the writ petition. 20. The judgement passed in the case of Gorkha Security Services (supra), (Para 16 to 22) has dealt with the “Necessity of serving show-cause notice as a requisite of the principles of natural justice” in the matter of blacklisting. 21. The paragraphs 16 to 20 of the judgment of Gorkha Security Services (supra) are quoted as under: - 8 “Necessity of serving show-cause notice as a requisite of the principles of natural justice 16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts. 17. Way back in the year 1975, this Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., highlighted the necessity of giving an opportunity to such a person by serving a show-cause notice thereby giving him opportunity to meet the allegations which were in the mind of the authority contemplating blacklisting of such a person. This is clear from the reading of paras 12 and 20 of the said judgment. Necessitating this requirement, the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 74-75) “12. Under Article 298 of the Constitution the executive power of the Union and the State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts for any purpose. The State can carry on executive function by making a law or without making a law. The exercise of such powers and functions in trade by the State is subject to Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Equality of opportunity should apply to matters of public contracts. The State has the right to trade. The State has there the duty to observe equality. An ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any person. The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination. The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. 20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” 18. Again, in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar the aforesaid principle was reiterated in the following manner: (SCC p. 230, para 4) “4. Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. Insofar as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the 9 order insofar as it directs blacklisting of the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law. In the premises, that portion of the order directing that the appellant be placed in the blacklist in respect of future contracts under the Collector is set aside. So far as the cancellation of the bid of the appellant is concerned, that is not affected. This order will, however, not prevent the State Government or the appropriate authorities from taking any future steps for blacklisting the appellant if the Government is so entitled to do in accordance with law i.e. after giving the appellant due notice and an opportunity of making representation. After hearing the appellant, the State Government will be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with law indicating the reasons therefor. We, however, make it quite clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. The appeal is thus disposed of.” 19. Recently, in Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India speaking through one of us (Jasti Chelameswar, J.) this Court emphatically reiterated the principle by explaining the same in the following manner: (SCC pp. 262-63, paras 13-15) “13. The concept of ‘blacklisting’ is explained by this Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. as under: (SCC p. 75, para 20) ‘20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from lawful the privilege and advantage of entering relationship with the Government for purposes of gains.’ into 14. The nature of the authority of the State to blacklist the persons was considered by this Court in the abovementioned case and took note of the constitutional provision (Article 298), which authorises both the Union of India and the States to make contracts for any purpose and to carry on any trade or business. It also authorises the acquisition, holding and disposal of property. This Court also took note of the fact that the right to make a contract includes the right not to make a contract. By definition, the said right is inherent in every person capable of entering into a contract. However, such a right either to enter or not to enter into a contract with any person is subject to a constitutional obligation to obey the command of Article 14. Though nobody has any right to compel the State to enter into a contract, everybody has a right to be treated equally when the State seeks to establish contractual relationships. The effect of excluding a person from entering into a contractual relationship with the State would be to deprive such person to be treated equally with those, who are also engaged in similar activity. 15. It follows from the above judgment in Erusian Equipment case4 that the decision of the State or its instrumentalities not to deal with certain persons or class of persons on account of the undesirability of entering into the contractual relationship with such persons is called blacklisting. The State can decline to enter into a contractual relationship with a person or a class of persons for a legitimate purpose. The authority of the State to blacklist a person is a necessary concomitant to the executive power of the State to carry on the trade or the business and making of contracts for any purpose, etc. There need not be any statutory grant of such power. The only legal limitation upon the exercise of such an authority is that the State is to act fairly and rationally without in any way being arbitrary—thereby such a decision can be taken for some legitimate purpose. What is the legitimate purpose that is sought to be achieved by the State in a given case can vary depending upon various factors.” 10 20. Thus, there is no dispute about the requirement of serving show- cause notice. We may also hasten to add that once the show-cause notice is given and opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice is afforded, it is not even necessary to give an oral hearing. The High Court has rightly repudiated the appellant’s attempt in finding foul with the impugned order on this ground. Such a contention was specifically repelled in Patel Engg.” 22. In paragraphs 21 and 22 of the aforesaid judgment, the ‘contents of the show cause’ has also been discussed. Those paragraphs are quoted as under: - “ Contents of the show-cause notice 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.” 23. This court is of the considered view that the show cause notice was required to be issued by and on behalf of the same authority who has passed the impugned order of debarment in this case. In the present case no show cause was issued to the petitioner at all asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner be not debarred from participating in the future tenders of the respondent no. 1. The petitioner was responding to the communications of the respondent no.5 dealing with declaration of the status of the petitioner as “L-1 back out case” but the said communications were not the show cause relating to debarment of the petitioner by the authority/officer of the respondent no.1. This court is of the considered view that the 11 impugned order of debarment has been passed in complete ignorance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services (supra). 24. This court is not convinced with the argument of the respondents that required opportunity to explain the position before treating the petitioner as a ‘backout case’ was already granted and thus no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-issuance of separate show cause by the respondent no.1 to 4 before passing the impugned orders. This court is of the considered view that before passing the order of debarment, the appropriate authority is required to apply his mind to the facts and then upon a decision to proceed, is required to issue show cause notice and after granting an opportunity to show cause and considering the show cause reply, appropriate order is required to be passed. Such mode of exercise of power is applicable even in the matter of administrative decisions which has serious consequences of debarment. The opportunity having been given by the respondent no.5 (the third party involved in conducting the tender process) to explain before treating the petitioner as a ‘back out case’ cannot be said to be sufficient compliance of natural justice when the power to debar the petitioner has been exercised by another authority i.e the principal employer. 25. This court is conscious of the fact that out of debarment period of 1 year, almost six months have expired, but considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter is required to be remitted back to the authority who has passed the impugned order of debarment enabling the authority to issue show cause in consonance with the aforesaid judgement of Gorkha Security Services (supra) and pass fresh order in accordance with law. Considering the nature of dispute which is primarily based on the conduct of the petitioner in the tender process being conducted by the third party i.e. respondent no.5, it will be open to the authority to ask the respondent no.5 to forward all the relevant materials a copy of which be also forwarded to the petitioner. In order to ensure all fairness to the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, an opportunity of hearing is also required to be given to the petitioner before passing any final order, which is also required to be a reasoned order. 12 26. This court finds that the impugned orders [i.e. order dated 26.11.2022 amended vide order dated 03.12.2022] relating to debarment of the petitioner have been passed by the respondent BSL/SAIL and it is an admitted fact that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given by BSL/SAIL before passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders of debarment have serious civil consequences upon the credibility as well as business opportunities of the petitioner and such orders are required to be passed after following the principles of natural justice. 27. With respect to the argument of the respondent BSL regarding their reserved power in so called Bid Securing Declaration (Annexure- 15), this court is of the considered view that such power is also subject to Principle of Natural Justice besides objective justification of the proposed action particularly when the matter relates to drastic action of blacklisting / debarment. 28. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned orders dated 26.11.2022 (modified vide order dated 03.12.2022) are set aside to enable the concerned authority of the Respondent no.1 to pass fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid observations. Since the petitioner has already remained debarred for a period of about 6 months, no fresh notice be issued to the petitioner in the matter of debarment and ends of justice would be served if a fresh order is passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are already reflecting in the impugned orders. 29. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 1 on 22.05.2023 at 11:00 a.m. by filing a representation along with a copy of this order and a copy of the entire writ records. 30. Upon appearance of the petitioner, the concerned authority of the respondent No. 1 shall fix a date of hearing on the point of debarment of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of 10 days from 22.05.2023 in the light of the aforesaid observations. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through e- mail at the e-mail ID to be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. 13 31. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj/Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)