IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6790 OF 2009. Shri Madhukar Bhikaji Patil. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS Union of India and others. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri M.N. Nawandar, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2010. PER COURT: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The grievance made in this petition is in relation to the decision communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 22nd September, 2009 sent by the Principal, Zonal Railway Training Institute, Bhusawal. The said letter reads thus: “Central Railway Office of the Principal Zonal Railway Training Institute, Bhusawal, Date : 22/09/2009. No.A/2035/Sugar/09-10. Shri M.B. Patil, Vitthal Mandir Ward, Bhusawal. Sub: Your offer dated 16/07/2009 for supply of sugar M-30. Zonal Railway Training Institute Bhusawal has invited tender for Sugar M-30 on dt.26/09/2008 and dt. 12/03/2009 for which you was the successful bidder vide letter No.A-2035/Sugar/08-09 dt.22/12/2008 and L.No.A/2035/Sugar/09-10, dt.08/05/2009 respectively. Despite of the fact that you was the successful bidder, you failed to supply the material required in the tender to ZRTI/BSL even after finalization of Agreement, which resulted into problems in day to day food preparation of ZRTI/Mess. You have given termination notice both the times and this institute faced lot of problem due to non supply of material (sugar). We have to go for another tendering process involving additional time and resulted into monitory loss to Administration. It appears from the practice adopted by you that you are clearly adopting delaying tactics to disturb the tendering process and causing monetary loss to the Rly. Administration. In view of the above, you have been debarred from bidding the future tenders of ZRTI BSL, for a period of two years. This has the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- 22/9 (K.M. Saxena) Principal ZRTI/BSL.” 3 According to the petitioner, this decision, though drastic in nature, has been taken without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The fact that no prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioner is not in dispute. We are in agreement with the argument of the petitioner that before taking such a drastic decision of blacklisting the petitioner from participating in tender process for two years period, which has civil consequence, the petitioner ought to have been given some semblance of opportunity by at least issuing show cause notice. That has not been done in this case. However, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, we are not inclined to straightway set aside the impugned decision. Instead, we would dispose of this petition with direction to the respondent No.2 to afford ex post facto hearing to the petitioner and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, pass appropriate order, as may be advised. If the respondent No.2 were to reiterate the opinion recorded in the impugned decision dated 22nd September, 2009, then nothing further is required to be done. However, in that case, the respondent No.2 shall record reasons for rejecting the plea taken by the petitioner during the said inquiry. On the other hand, if the petitioner’s stand were to be accepted by the respondent No.2, it would necessarily follow that the impugned decision would stand recalled and of no consequence. In other words, the decision of the respondent No.2 after ex post facto hearing on the matter in issue shall become final and binding on the parties. 4 The Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that once the Court has found that the action suffers from breach of principles of natural justice, the only option available to the Court is to set aside the decision. It is not possible to countenance such submission. Depending on the nature of controversy such as the present one, as we have mentioned earlier, it is not possible to straightway set aside the impugned decision but, interest of justice would be met if the petitioner was afforded ex post facto hearing in the matter. 5 Accordingly, we dispose of this petition on the above terms while directing the respondent No.2 to conclude the hearing in terms of this order and pass final decision expeditiously and in any case, not later than four weeks from today. The petitioner shall appear in the office of the respondent No.2 on 12th March, 2010 at 11 a.m. and submit his explanation or ask for such information, as may be advised. That may be considered by the respondent No.2, on its own merits. Authenticated copy of this order may be given to the parties. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] Kadam/*