MAMTA KHADOTIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 28/2/2023 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 12 th 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.,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.,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.