SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13. 02. 1998 in terms whereof the petitioner has been banned / blacklisted for a period of five years for future contracts. The time-period of five years has already elapsed but since there are certain civil consequences for the petitioner, the matter is required to be heard on merits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 03. 09. 1997 in respect of the performance of a contract by the petitioner in which the allegations were of connivance with the officials of the Railways. The petitioner inter alia addressed the letter dated 06. 10. 1997 calling upon the respondents to disclose the name of the officers, who were alleged to be colluding with the petitioner and the documentary basis thereof, if any. The respondents informed the petitioner vide letter dated 29. 10. 1997 that the information/documents sought for by the petitioner were irrelevant. The petitioner thereafter made a representation dated 05. 11. 1997 stating that the petitioner would not be in a position to file a proper reply in the absence of this information since in substance, the allegation was of colluding with the officials of the Railways to cause loss to the Railways. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid controversy was put to rest by the respondents in terms of the letter dated 22. 01. 1998, which is in the following terms :- "after due consideration to your letter, Railways have come to the conclusion that there is no need of disclosing the names of Railways officials involved and also the action taken against them. The failure of your firm are as under :-i) Over-stressing of various members. ii) Use of built up section where rolled sections are available which is not a technical practice. iii) Absence of gusset plates on joints. iv) Design was not done by any authorised engineer / consultant, etc. In view of above, you are requested to reply on the specific failure, failing which Department may proceed to take an ex-parte action. " ( 4 ) A perusal of the aforesaid shows that, in substance, there was a fresh show-cause notice issued as the allegations made were only on account of the technical failure in compliance of the contract by the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to file reply to this fresh show-cause notice. " ( 4 ) A perusal of the aforesaid shows that, in substance, there was a fresh show-cause notice issued as the allegations made were only on account of the technical failure in compliance of the contract by the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to file reply to this fresh show-cause notice. The ingredients mentioned in the earlier show-cause notice about collusion with the officers were dropped. The petitioner filed a reply dated 04. 02. 1998 and thereafter the impugned order dated 13. 02. 1998 has been passed. The order reads as under :- "m/s. Sarvesh Chopra Builders (P) Ltd. , New Delhi, Railways Contractor, were served with a memorandum and statement of charges for banning of business dealings with them for his misconduct / irregularities in execution of work vide contract Agreement No. (i) 74-W/gc/24/dee/re/wa, (ii) 12-ACS/c/ptnr and (iii)74-W/13/30/wa. 2. With reference to the Memorandum and Statement of Charges served to m/s. Sarvesh Chopra Builders (P) Ltd. , New Delhi reply dated 5. 11. 97 and 25. 11. 97 furnished by M/s. Sarvesh Chopra to the above Memorandum has been considered in all respects by the competent authority who have concluded that m/s. Sarvesh Chopra indulged in malpractices / misconduct and because of his failures by way of (i) Overstressing of various members, (ii) use of built up section where rolled sections are available which is not a technical practice, (iii) absent of gusset plates on joints, (iv) Designs was not done by any authorised engineer / consultant. 3. It has, therefore, been decided by the competent authority in the ministry of Railways that business dealings with M/s. Sarvesh Chopra whose address is given below and also with their sister concerns and partners should be banned on All India Railways including project organisations and production units etc. Under the Ministry of Railways for a period of five years with immediate effect. Receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged. " ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that a bare perusal of the order would show that there is no consideration of either the fresh show-cause notice dated 22. 01. 1998 or the reply of the petitioner dated 04. 02. 1998 and the order has been passed on the basis of the earlier show-cause notice and the reply given thereto. 01. 1998 or the reply of the petitioner dated 04. 02. 1998 and the order has been passed on the basis of the earlier show-cause notice and the reply given thereto. It is, thus, submitted that there is non-consideration of the relevant material while passing the impugned order. ( 6 ) ON hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, this Court would not sit as a court of appeal to examine complaints against the petitioner as that is for the competent authority to consider. However, it is trite to say that the concerned authority while passing the order of blacklisting must consider all the relevant material. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 13. 02. 1998 shows that it is only the earlier replies of the petitioner, which have been considered, which were, in fact, responses to the show-cause notice dated 03. 09. 1997. ( 7 ) THE petitioner had been asking for certain information and documents and in terms of the communication dated 22. 01. 1998 that material forming part of the earlier show-cause notice was held not to be relevant since the allegation of connivance was dropped and four technical charges were specifically referred to in this new notice. ( 8 ) IN my considered view, it makes no difference that these charges also formed part of the allegations of the earlier show-cause notice. The petitioner sent a reply dated 04. 02. 1998. This reply has not even been considered as there was no mention of the same in the impugned order dated 13. 02. 1998. The material considered by the authority has been mentioned in the said order, which are the earlier responses as already stated above. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 13. 02. 1998 cannot be sustained and is quashed and the rule is made absolute leaving the parties to bear their own costs.