Judgment A.K. SIKRI, J. C.M. Nos. 4730-31 of 2013 Allowed. Replication is taken on record. Disposed of. CWP No. 341 of 2013 Facts of the matter need not be traversed in detail. Suffice is to point out that the present petition is preferred by the petitioner questioning the validity of orders dated 25.09.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2, namely, Chief Engineer of Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited, debarring the petitioner from any future participation in tenders for a period of five years. Prime contention, nay, sole contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid orders had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as there was no proper opportunity granted to the petitioner to show cause against such a move on the part of the respondents. 2. As per the records, show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 was issued by the respondents to the petitioner giving him opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in some other contract. However, submission of the petitioner is that this show cause notice was never received by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not give any reply thereto. 3. While issuing notice of motion, we had also directed the respondents to produce the original record in which orders dated 25.09.2012 had been passed. That record is produced and we have perused the same. The arguments are also heard with reference to that record. 4. Perusal of the record shows that show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 was sent to the petitioner at its work's place which is an address in Dehradun. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the tender which was submitted by the petitioner with the respondents correspondence address of New Delhi office was mentioned i.e. 7/33, Ansari Road, Daria Ganj, New Delhi. In that, even fax numbers where the communication by fax could be sent were also given. Two fax numbers of the telephone lines in New Delhi which were given are 011-23279424 and 23279463. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the copy of the dispatch register of the respondents which is annexed as Annexure P-16 with the replication and it shows that the respondents had sent the final orders dated 25.09.2012 blacklisting the petitioner at New Delhi address. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the copy of the dispatch register of the respondents which is annexed as Annexure P-16 with the replication and it shows that the respondents had sent the final orders dated 25.09.2012 blacklisting the petitioner at New Delhi address. From this dispatch register, it is also shown by learned counsel for the petitioner that whenever any letter was sent by fax, the same is duly indicated in the dispatch register. Furthermore, after sending the letters by fax, the respondents were getting the receipt of the same confirmed as well and that is also indicated in the dispatch register. While that has happened qua other correspondences exchanged between the parties, in so far as show cause notice is concerned, no such procedure is adopted. It is also pointed out that as per normal practice, whenever such show cause notice is issued, copy thereof is sent to other departments. However, even this was not done when purported show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 was sent to the petitioner. 5. By the impugned orders dated 25.09.2012, the petitioner is debarred from participating in any tenders for a period of five years. This order amounts to blacklisting of the petitioner and it has very serious civil and criminal consequences, inasmuch as the effect of the said order would be that not only the petitioner is debarred from submitting any tender with the respondents herein, but on that ground, the petitioner would be prevented from submitting its tender in any other government departments as well. In a matter like this, we are of the opinion that it becomes imperative that there should be an adequate opportunity given to the petitioner before passing such an order. No doubt, the respondents had sent the show cause notice dated 29.07.2011, but it was sent at Dehradun address, whereas the administrative office/corporate office of the petitioner is in New Delhi and it is the New Delhi address which was specifically given by the petitioner to the respondents in the present tender for the purposes of correspondence. In a case like this, we are of the opinion that fresh opportunity should be given to the petitioner as the dispatching of the show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 at Dehradun address may not amount to giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to get the allegations reversed levelled in the said show cause notice. In a case like this, we are of the opinion that fresh opportunity should be given to the petitioner as the dispatching of the show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 at Dehradun address may not amount to giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to get the allegations reversed levelled in the said show cause notice. It is also to be borne in mind that though the show cause notice was dated 29.07.2011, the impugned order came to be passed only 14 months thereafter i.e. on 25.09.2012 and it is not understood as to why so much time was consumed for taking such a decision. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.09.2012 is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall submit its reply to the show cause notice dated 29.07.2011 within a period of three weeks from today. On receipt of the reply, the respondent No. 2 shall take a decision thereon and pass speaking orders. The respondent No. 2 shall also give personal hearing to the petitioner, if the petitioner so desires. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner.