Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010087012023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2190/2023 PEYUSH TRADERS A COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT OFFICE NO 2, LATISH PLAZA, OPP. GANESH TEMPLE, HAJI MALANG ROAD, DWARLI, THANE MAHARASHTRA AND REP. HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MANOJ BHATTACHARJEE, AGED ABOUT 34, S/O- SANKAR BHATTACHARJEE, R/O- PANBAZAR, P.S- PANBAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-05 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, RAIL BHAVAN, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001 2:THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER MALIGAON N.F. RAILWAY KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-781011 3:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA PIN-786125 4:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER Page No.# 2/6 TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA PIN-78612 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. RANGON CHOUDHURY,MS N MAHANTA,N GAUTAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 09.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI representing all the respondents. 2. The petitioner has put to challenge the letter dated 24.02.2023 issued by the respondent no.4, by which the petitioner has been debarred from participating in the Bids for executing any work being tendered by the NF Railway, Tinsukia Division, for a period of 2 years from 24.02.2023. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned letter dated 24.02.2023, debarring the petitioner from participating in the Bids for 2 years is liable to be set aside, in view of the fact that no notice for debarring/blacklisting the petitioner had been issued, prior to the impugned letter being issued. 4. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI fairly submits that though Show- Cause Notice dated 17.02.2023 had been issued to the petitioner for terminating the petitioner’s contract work, the said Show-Cause Notice did not make any Page No.# 3/6 reference to any proposal for debarring/blacklisting the petitioner from participating in any further tenders of the NF Railway Tinsukia Division. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. The impugned letter dated 24.02.2023 states as follows : “Dear Madam/Sir, Contract No. GEMC-511687795720986; dated 13.12.2022. In connection with the work of Provision of On Board Housekeeping Services and Linen Distribution in trains primarily maintained ot Tinsukia Division for a period of two years on outcome basis Seven days (7 days) notice was given to you under this office letter of even no, dated: 17.02.2023 but you have not taken necessary enough action to resume the services as per contract conditions. Even though you provided some staffs in a few trains, your staffs have detrained en-route. Since the period of 7 days' notice has already expired, the above contract stands rescinded in terms of Clause 7.4 of General Conditions of Contract and the balance services under this contract will be carried out Independently without your participation. Your participation as well as participation of every member/partner in any manner as an Individual or a partnership firm is hereby debarred from participation in the Bid for executing the balance services and your Performance Guarantee shall also be encashed/forfeited. In addition, your participation as well as participation of every member/partner in any manner as an individual or a partnership firm is hereby debarred from participation in the bid for executing any work being tendered by the said Page No.# 4/6 Railway division for a period of two years from the date of issue of this letter. Kindly acknowledge receipt.” 7. The notice dated 17.02.2023 mentioned in the impugned letter dated 24.02.2023 only states that if the petitioner does not resume the contract work, a notice for termination of the above contract would be issued to the petitioner and the contract would be rescinded. The said notice dated 17.02.2023 which is a Show-Cause Notice for termination of the petitioner’s contract, has not put the petitioner to notice, to the effect that the petitioner would be blacklisted/debarred from participating in any future Bids. 8. On a perusal of the letter/notice dated 17.02.2023, there is nothing discernible from the contents provided therein that there was any proposal on the part of the respondents to debar/blacklist the petitioner. 9. In the case of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, the Supreme Court has held that law with regard to issuance of Show-Cause Notice prior to blacklisting is firmly grounded and the giving of an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom the action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. It held that the serving of the Show-Cause Notice is not only to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet , but the other requirement is that he should be made to know the nature of action which is proposed to be taken against him. That should be stated in the notice, so that the noticee is able to point out that the proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactory explained. The Supreme Court held in the Page No.# 5/6 above case that the giving of a prior notice was imperative. It held as follows : “When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is the harshest possible action.” The Supreme Court thus held in paragraph-22 that in order to fulfill 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 on 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 be clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.” 10. In the above case of Gorkha Security Services (Supra), the Supreme Court further held that even if it is not specifically mentioned that the competent authority intended to impose such a penalty of blacklisting, but it could be clearly inferred that such an action was proposed, that would fulfill the requirement of the Show-Cause Notice. However, a reading of the notice/letter dated 17.02.2023, does not give any indication that the respondents intended to impose a penalty of blacklisting/debarment of the petitioners from participating in future contracts/bids. 11. In the case of Voyants Solutions Private Limited & Others vs. Union Page No.# 6/6 of India & Others, reported in (2024) 3 GLT 78, this Court had held that the Supreme Court has specifically held that the Show-Cause Notice would not only have to give the grounds for which the Notice giver would want to take action upon the person concerned, but the Show-Cause Notice would also have to put the noticee to attention, of the fact that the authority intended to impose a penalty of blacklisting upon the said person. If the notice does not state that the penalty of blacklisting is proposed, it should be clearly discernible from the notice that a penalty of blacklisting was being proposed. In the present case also, the respondents should have issued a prior Show-Cause Notice to the petitioner stating the precise case set up against it, besides specifically making the petitioner know that the penalty of blacklisting/debarment was being proposed to be taken against it. However, the same has not been done. 12. As there has been a violation of principles of natural justice with regard to the manner in which the petitioner has been debarred/blacklisted, the impugned letter dated 24.02.2023 issued by the respondent no.4 is set aside, only to the extent that the petitioner has been debarred from participating in the future Bids of the NF Railway Tinsukia Division for a period of 2 years. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant