Case: UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR

3. The Corporation had issued a Bid Document on 25.11.2016 inviting bids for appointment of a recruitment agency to conduct the process of recruitment for hiring watchmen for the Corporations office. The appellant submitted its bid on 21.12.2016 and was eventually declared as the successful bidder vide the Corporations letter dated 28.03.2017. After completion of the formalities, the appellant was appointed for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 14.02.2017 for undertaking the tendered work of conducting recruitment of watchmen for the Corporation.4. As part of its work, on 01.04.2018, the appellant conducted a written exam for eligible aspirants for the post of watchman with the Corporation at various centres in Madhya Pradesh. On the same day, a Special Task Force of Bhopal Police arrested 50 persons in Gwalior, who were in possession of certain handwritten documents which prima facie appeared to be the question papers related to the examination conducted by the appellant. The police filed a charge sheet on 03.08.2018 against certain persons including an employee of the appellant. Upon receipt of the above information, the Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 to the appellant informing the appellant about the said arrest and seizure of documents which appeared to contain question papers related to the examination conducted by the appellant. This notice alleged that the appellant had breached various clauses of the Bid Document dated 25.11.2016 on the ground that it was the sole responsibility of the appellant to prepare and distribute the question papers as well as conduct the examination in a highly confidential manner. Several clauses of the Bid Document were listed in the said notice dated 10.04.2018 and the Corporation alleged that the appellant had violated the same due to its abject failure and clear negligence in ensuring smooth conduct of the examination. The said notice directed the appellant to furnish an explanation within 15 days, failing which an appropriate ex-parte decision would be taken by the Corporation.5. The appellant replied to the aforesaid notice vide its letter dated 12.04.2018 denying any negligence or leak of question papers from its end. In its communication, the appellant furnished several factual justifications in support of its position and also requested the Corporation to make the documents seized by the police available to the appellant for forensic analysis. These documents were provided to the appellant vide the Corporations letter dated 18.10.2018. The Corporation addressed another letter dated 22.10.2018 calling upon the appellant to submit its final reply/explanation. Thereafter, on 27.10.2018, the appellant submitted an Observation Report-cum-Reply/Explanation which compared the seized documents with the original question papers and contended that there were many dissimilarities between the two and thus there had been no leakage or dissemination of the original question papers.6. By its aforesaid order dated 09.01.2019, the Corporation concluded that the shortcomings/negligence on part of the appellant stood established beyond any reasonable doubt and proceeded to terminate its contract with the appellant and also blacklisted the appellant from participating in any future tenders of the corporation for a period of 5 years. Further, the appellants security deposit with the Corporation was forfeited and the appellant was directed to execute the unexpired portion of the contract at its own cost and risk.7. Aggrieved by the above order of the Corporation, the appellant, after issuing a legal notice, filed Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2019 before the High Court. This petition came to be dismissed by the High Courts aforesaid order dated 13.02.2019 which is under challenge before us.

Reasoning:
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel at the Bar on behalf of the parties. In our opinion, the validity of the impugned order of the Corporation dated 09.01.2019, so far as the blacklisting of the appellant thereunder is concerned, would in turn be determined by the validity of the underlying show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 issued by the Corporation to the appellant.13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Lucknow and Anr.,(1980) 3 SCC 1.   has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.15. In the present case as well, the appellant has submitted that serious prejudice has been caused to it due to the Corporations order of blacklisting as several other government corporations have now terminated their contracts with the appellant and/or prevented the appellant from participating in future tenders even though the impugned blacklisting order was, in fact, limited to the Corporations Madhya Pradesh regional office. This domino effect, which can effectively lead to the civil death of a person, shows that the consequences of blacklisting travel far beyond the dealings of the blacklisted person with one particular government corporation and in view thereof, this Court has consistently prescribed strict adherence to principles of natural justice whenever an entity is sought to be blacklisted.16. The severity of the effects of blacklisting and the resultant need for strict observance of the principles of natural justice before passing an order of blacklisting were highlighted by this Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal2 in the following terms:12. … 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.15. … The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions. The black lists are instruments of coercion.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.19. In light of the above decisions, it is clear that a prior show cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative decision-making and particularly so in decisions pertaining to blacklisting which entail grave consequences for the entity being blacklisted. In these cases, furnishing of a valid show cause notice is critical and a failure to do so would be fatal to any order of blacklisting pursuant thereto.20. In the present case, the factum of service of the show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 by the Corporation upon the appellant is not in dispute. Rather, what Shri Banerji has argued on behalf of the appellant is that the contents of the said show cause notice were not such that the appellant could have anticipated that an order of blacklisting was being contemplated by the Corporation. Gorkha Security Services (supra) is a case where this Court had to decide whether the action of blacklisting could have been taken without specifically proposing/contemplating such an action in the show-cause notice. For this purpose, this Court laid down the below guidelines as to the contents of a show cause notice pursuant to which adverse action such as blacklisting may be adopted:Contents of the show-cause notice21. 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 agent, 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 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.21. Thus, from the above discussion, a clear legal position emerges that for a show cause notice to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that there is intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the noticee. Such a clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom the penalty of blacklisting is intended to be imposed, has an adequate, informed and meaningful opportunity to show cause against his possible blacklisting.24. A plain reading of the notice makes it clear that the action of blacklisting was neither expressly proposed nor could it have been inferred from the language employed by the Corporation in its show cause notice. After listing 12 clauses of the Instruction to Bidders, which were part of the Corporations Bid Document dated 25.11.2016, the notice merely contains a vague statement that in light of the alleged leakage of question papers by the appellant, an appropriate decision will be taken by the Corporation. In fact, Clause 10 of the same Instruction to Bidders section of the Bid Document, which the Corporation has argued to be the source of its power to blacklist the appellant, is not even mentioned in the show cause notice. While the notice clarified that the 12 clauses specified in the notice were only indicative and not exhaustive, there was nothing in the notice which could have given the appellant the impression that the action of blacklisting was being proposed. This is especially true since the appellant was under the belief that the Corporation was not even empowered to take such an action against it and since the only clause which mentioned blacklisting was not referred to by the Corporation in its show cause notice. While the following paragraphs deal with whether or not the appellants said belief was well-founded, there can be no question that it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation to clarify in the show cause notice that it intended to blacklist the appellant, so as to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the same.25. The mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice. The Corporations notice is completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in the show cause notice to black list, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply for the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 does not fulfil the requirements of a valid show cause notice for blacklisting. In our view, the order of blacklisting the appellant clearly traversed beyond the bounds of the show cause notice which is impermissible in law. As a result, the consequent blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 cannot be sustained.26. In view of our conclusion that the blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Corporation is contrary to the principles of natural justice, it is unnecessary for us to consider the other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate not to remit the matter to the Corporation for fresh consideration.