JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 23rd February, 2015 wherein the learned Single Judge refused to pass any interim order. 2. In order to understand the stand of both the parties so far as the issue in question, it would be just and proper to narrate the facts in brief that led to the present situation. 3. The writ petitioner is a limited company in the field of manufacturing and sale of Ductile iron pipes (known as D.I. Pipes). We are concerned with the notice inviting tender published by the authorities on 31st January, 2014 for supply and delivery of D.I. Pipes. In response to this tender, apparently the appellant offered his tender. Apart from rejecting, the said tender the appellant was black listed for a period of three years with retrospective effect from 19th February, 2014. The main contention of the appellant seems to be that the deficit or the misleading facts placed on record in the form of declaration which was required to be submitted along with the tender at the most may call for disqualification but the same cannot justify black-listing the appellant from participating in the tender process for the next three years, as stated above. 4. The dispute or the controversy between the parties relates to the details indicated in the declaration form which is at page-70 of the stay application. According to the appellant in terms of the tender invitation all the details without concealing any fact were brought on record before the authorities, hence there was no justification for blacklisting. According to the stand of the respondent authority there are non-disclosures of several important materials disclosing details as indicated in the declaration which were not only misleading but amounted to suppression of material facts relating to the value. Therefore, there was justification on their part in blacklisting the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is justified. 5. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is relevant to refer to tender invitation floated by the respondent authority so far as the tender in question, which is at page 50. As per this tender document under the heading 'Other mandatory requirement' it was provided that a the declaration in the form of affidavit was to be submitted which should include the details under different paragraphs as indicated in the application as under :- "1. As per this tender document under the heading 'Other mandatory requirement' it was provided that a the declaration in the form of affidavit was to be submitted which should include the details under different paragraphs as indicated in the application as under :- "1. That all the documents submitted by me/our M/s....................... are authentic. 2. That I/We/M/s. ..................... has not been barred/de-listed/blacklisted by any Govt. department/Govt. undertaking/Statutory Body/Municipality and of the like Govt. Bodies in supply tender during last five years. 3. That, if any such incident is found at any point of time, the name of M/s. ..................... will be canceled without assigning any reason whatsoever." 6. So far as the penalty or the consequence of suppression or non-disclosure, another sub-heading indicated the penalty for suppression/distortion of facts which read as under :- "Penalty for Suppression/Distortion of Facts: "If any tenderer fails to produce the original/verbarim hard copies of the documents or any other documents/related documents on demand of the Tender Evaluation Committee, within the specified time frame, as mention in this tender notice or if any deviation is directed in the hard copies from the uploaded soft copies or if there is sort of suppression whatsoever wilful or un-wilful, the tenderer will be suspended from participating in the tenders on e-tender platform for a period of 3 (three) years. In addition, his user ID will be deactivated and earnest money deposit will stand forfeited. Besides, the Competent Authority of KMDA may take appropriate legal action against such defaulting tender". 7. It is also necessary to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of declaration to understand the controversy in issue: "We, Rashmi Metaliks limited having its registered office at Premlata Building, 39, Shakespeare Sarani, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700017, do hereby declare that we are currently not debarred/blacklisted/delisted by any Govt./Semi-Govt./Municipality/Water Board etc. against supply of DI Pipe anywhere within the geographical domain of India. ..... ....... ........ ....... A letter of blacklisting was issued against us by Bhatpara Municipality, 1/1, West Ghoshpara Road, PO Kankinara, Dist: North 24 Parganas, West Bengal - 743126 vide Letter No. J-2/WW/DR-2/6826 dated 19th January, 2013. The same has been challenged by us in High Court of Kolkata vide Writ Petition No. 7781 (W) of 2013 and the blacklisting was set aside (i.e. declared illegal) by the judgment of Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Dutta, Calcutta High Court. The same has been challenged by us in High Court of Kolkata vide Writ Petition No. 7781 (W) of 2013 and the blacklisting was set aside (i.e. declared illegal) by the judgment of Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Dutta, Calcutta High Court. The blacklisting letter and the court order setting aside the blacklisting are attached with this declaration and marked as "A3". Rashmi Metaliks Limited had participated in a Tender called by HMWS & SB (Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board), Hyderabad for supply of DI Pipes vide e-Tender Notification No. 182/CGM(E)/O&MC.III/Stores/DI (K7) pipes/2012-2013 dated 22/12/2012 and stood as the L1 bidder HMWS&SB awarded work order in favour of Rashmi Metaliks Limited vide Work Order No. DOP/DI pipes/HMWS&SB/2012- 2013 dated 31/01/2013. Subsequently the Work Order was cancelled by HMWS&SB vide Ref. No. DOP/DI Pipes/HMWS&SB/2012-2013/3690 dated 19/03/2013. This was a case of Order cancellation and has no co-relation to Blacklisting/Debarment. A Letter of "Debarment from participating in Future DI Pipe Supply Tender" was issued against Rashmi Metaliks Limited by the Directorate of Public Health Engineering (PHED, Govt. of West Bengal) vide Memo No. 971/RS dated 11/09/2013. The same has been challenged by us in High Court of Kolkata vide Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2013. The Hon'ble Court, upon hearing counsels appearing for the parties directed to exchange affidavits and directed that matter will appear on 08/11/2013. The Hon'ble Court further observed that petitioner may press for order of injunction if no affidavit is filed within time. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court that the petitioner participation in any pending tenders will abide by the result of the Writ application. A letter of debarment/blacklisting has been issued by Bhatpara Municipality on 10/02/2014. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. has challenged the said letter of debarment/blacklisting by filing a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 5341 (W) of 2014. Rashmi Metaliks has prayed for interim stay of effect of aforesaid letter. The matter is running in the list of Hon'ble Justice Soumitra Pal and is expected to be heard at 2-00 p.m. on 19/02/2014 or soon thereafter when business of the Hon'ble Court permit." 8. Rashmi Metaliks has prayed for interim stay of effect of aforesaid letter. The matter is running in the list of Hon'ble Justice Soumitra Pal and is expected to be heard at 2-00 p.m. on 19/02/2014 or soon thereafter when business of the Hon'ble Court permit." 8. So far as this declaration, according to the respondent State, when a letter of debarment/blacklisting pertaining to Bhatpara Municipality dated 10th February, 2014 (subject-matter of WP 5341 (W) of 2014) was pending, there was no justification on the part of the appellant to give a declaration that they were not currently debarred/blacklisted/de-listed by any Government, Semi Government etc. Therefore, this is suppression of fact. It is also the stand of the Government that there was debarment at least for a period of three years so far as in respect of tender called by HMWS&SB and the same was not mentioned clearly and the same a case of concealment by saying that it was a case of order cancellation and not debarment on the part of the appellant. Therefore, so far as the impugned blacklisting, there is enough material and proper and justified reasons existed for passing such order. According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anindya Mitra, though a declaration that the appellant was not currently debarred or blacklisted was mentioned in the first paragraph the entire declaration if read would indicate clearly each and every issue pertaining to the appellant with reference to different authorities were clearly explained under different paragraphs. Therefore, there was no concealment and specially the issues pertaining to the tenders by HMWS&SB and Bhatpara Municipality were explained with reference to the dates of orders in the declaration. Therefore, there was no justification of blacklisting them. According to him, apart from explanation or details mentioned in the declaration, the letters clarifying the position issued by the concerned authorities specially the letters dated 7th September, 2013, 12th September, 2014 and 11th December, 2014 clearly indicates that HMWS&SB never blacklisted or debarred the appellant from participating in the tender process. Therefore the learned Judge ought to have granted interim relief sought in the writ petition. It is however clarified that so far as the challenge to the disqualification, the appellant has since withdrawn the writ petition as the work order pertaining to the tender in question has already been issued in favour of third parties. Therefore the learned Judge ought to have granted interim relief sought in the writ petition. It is however clarified that so far as the challenge to the disqualification, the appellant has since withdrawn the writ petition as the work order pertaining to the tender in question has already been issued in favour of third parties. Therefore, they are prosecuting the matter only with regard to blacklisting and nothing else. They have further contended that in the absence of any concealment or suppression in complying with the terms of tender so far as declaration is concerned, the impugned order is unwarranted and is creating obstacle, hardship and huge loss to the appellant as they are not allowed to participate in any tender not only the State of West Bengal, but also outside the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the impugned order blacklisting them deserves to be set aside or quashed. 9. We have gone through the relevant papers produced in connection with the controversy raised. So far as Bhatpara Municipality, though the first paragraph of the declaration reproduces the word indicated in the tender notice by a positive statement that they are not currently debarred or blacklisted or delisted by any Government, Semi-Government, Municipality etc. as on the date of submission of this declaration, i.e. 19th February, 2014, so far as Writ Petition No. 5341 (W) of 2014 was pending pertaining to letter of debarment/blacklisting issued by Bhatpara Municipality on 10th February, 2014. Though in the first paragraph of the declaration the appellant have made a positive declaration that they are not currently debarred or blacklisted, it is evident from the last paragraph that as on 19th February, 2014 the letter of debarment/blacklisting by Bhatpara Municipality dated 10th February, 2014 was staring at their face. Whether this could be taken as suppression or concealment of fact in order to blacklist or debar the appellant is the question. Whether this could be taken as suppression or concealment of fact in order to blacklist or debar the appellant is the question. If at all the first paragraph of declaration were to be read in isolation it would indicate that there is a positive statement that the appellant is not currently debarred or blacklisted though it is stated in the last paragraph they have challenged the letter of debarment dated 10th February, 2014 by Bhatpara Municipality and the matter was coming up for hearing on self-same date, that is, 19th February, 2014 at 2-00 P.M. No doubt the averments are mutually irreconcilable and the same would amount to mis-statement justifying order of cancellation, but such inconsistent version in the declaration would not in our opinion constitute suppression or concealment of fact which is admittedly the ground for blacklisting as per the terms of the tender. 10. Coming to the alleged concealment so far as debarment by HMWS&SB of Andhra Pradesh, the letter dated 7th July, 2013 is relied upon by the respondent authority in the matter. On perusal of this letter at page 287 we note that this letter is addressed to the Chief Engineer, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority by the Director HMWS&SB Port, Hyderabad. The contents of this letter reads as under :- "To The Chief Engineer, Materials Sector, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Unnayan Bhavan, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700 091, Fax No. 03323593563. Sir, Sub: HMWS&SB - Confirmation letter in Respect of M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited regarding. Ref: Your Memo No. 279/KMDA/MAT/2P-37 (PT-VI) dated 5.6.2013 This has reference to your Memo No. 2797/KMDA/MAT/2P-37 (PT-VI) we confirm that the HMWS&SB has rejected certain tenders of M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. and also cancelled the Work Order duly forfeited the EMD due to non-disclosure of criminal case pending against them and the HMWS&SB will not allow to participate in the DI pipe supply tender of our Board till the settlement of criminal cases pending against them. Yours sincerely, Sd/- Director (Operations) HMWS&SB Board." 11. Reading the above letter clearly indicates HMWS&SB decided not to allow the appellant to participate in DI Pipe supply tender pertaining to the Board till settlement of criminal cases pending against them. Yours sincerely, Sd/- Director (Operations) HMWS&SB Board." 11. Reading the above letter clearly indicates HMWS&SB decided not to allow the appellant to participate in DI Pipe supply tender pertaining to the Board till settlement of criminal cases pending against them. According to the respondent authorities when the dispute came up before the Apex Court with reference to another matter on 11th September, 2013, the appellant were made aware of the letter dated 7th June, 2013 that they were debarred from participating in supply of DI Pipes. Therefore, as on the date of submission of declaration on 19th February, 2014 they were aware of the existence of letter dated 7th June, 2013 and in spite of it they have not disclosed the matter properly and on the other hand they have taken a different stand by narrating the issue as order of cancellation rather than debarment. 12. In response to this argument, the appellants submitted that the letter dated 7th June, 2013 became the subject-matter of several correspondences between the petitioner and the concerned authorities. The collective import whereof is that there was no debarment/blacklisting of the petitioner by HMWS&SB a case of order cancellation. 13 First of such letter is dated 7th September, 2013 - sort of clarification given to HMWS&SB saying that the appellant was not blacklisted but tenders will be evaluated as per tender document. This is at page 291 of the papers. They also mentioned that the reasons for dis-qualification was already recorded online itself. However, this letter does not clearly indicate whether with reference to letter dated 7th June, 2013 there was a positive debarment or blacklisting. 14. Subsequently by letter on 12th September, 2014 HMWS&SB gave another clarification at page 221, which reads as under:- "GOVERNMENT OF TELENGANA HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD Date : 12.9.2014 TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, has not participated in tenders of HMWS&SB for past one year. However, the firm viz., M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Kolkata, has participated in recent tender notice No. 124/CGM(E)/O&MC.III/DI Pipes/2014-15, dated 4.8.2014 in the e-procurement platform. Participation in tenders under e-procurement platform infers that the firm is not debarred. This certificate is issued as per the specific request of M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Kolkata. Sd/- Chief General Manager Engg. Operation & Maint Circle No. III." 15. Participation in tenders under e-procurement platform infers that the firm is not debarred. This certificate is issued as per the specific request of M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Kolkata. Sd/- Chief General Manager Engg. Operation & Maint Circle No. III." 15. The second sentence is relevant for our purpose so far as Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. the firm is not debarred in participation of tender under e-procurement platform. Thereafter on 14th January, 2015 the impugned order of blacklisting was passed. Prior to that by another letter dated 11th December, 2014 written by HMWS&SB the latter confirmed that the appellant was never blacklisted nor debarred nor disallowed nor de-listed by HMWS&SB. 16. The proceeding with regard to blacklisting commenced sometime in October, 2014. The show cause notice is at page 190 dated 13th October, 2014 followed by a corrigendum dated 16th October, 2014, the reply is dated 20th October, 2014 and followed by advocate's notice dated 27th November, 2014. It is pertinent to note that the clarification dated 11th December, 2014 by HMWS&SB came in possession of the appellant after the hearing and the respondent authority had no occasion to consider the same. 17. Learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellant seriously challenged the notice dated 13th October, 2014 contending that initially the impression was given to the appellant that action was taken against them with regard to letter dated 19th March, 2013 of HMWS&SB which refers to only cancellation of the order and not to blacklisting. Therefore, the corrigendum dated 16th October, 2014 correcting the letter as 7th June, 2013 instead of 19th March, 2013 indicates non-application of mind in issuance of the initial showcause notice. As against this learned Government Advocate submits that if the contents of the letter dated 7th June, 2013 is read along with the contents of letter dated 19th March, 2013 they all refer to the same tender of HMWS&SB wherein there was restraint order so far as the supply of DI Pipes by the present appellant was issued till disposal of the criminal case by the concerned authority. 18. 18. On perusal of these letters dated 19th March, 2013 and 7th June, 2013 we find they refer to one and the same subject-matter that is not only cancellation of order of supply of DI Pipes but also to some restraint so far as the participation of the appellants in the tender process of supply of DI Pipes till criminal cases are completed. Therefore, we cannot quash the impugned order dated 14th January, 2015 on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the respondent authorities. 19. So far as the submission that the contents of the letter whether 7th June, 2013 would really amount to debarment of the appellant from participating in future tender process or not, learned Senior counsel streneously relies upon the correspondences made by HMWS&SB, Hyderabad subsequent to 7th June, 2013. He also refers to the contents of letter dated 27th November, 2014 where there is reference of AST 95 of 2014 in W. P. 5341 (W) of 2014. However, while clarifying the situation and explaining the factual situation, the appellants in the reply dated 27th November, 2014 did not refer to the letter of HMWS&SB dated 11th December, 2014 where there is a categorical statement that the appellant was never blacklisted by the said authority as the same subsequently came in their possession. If only this letter was placed before the respondent authorities probably understanding of the contents of the letter dated 7th June, 2013 with reference to restraining the participation of the appellants in supply of DI Pipes till completion of criminal cases pending against them amounted to blacklisting or cancellation of tender as per the terms and conditions of tender relating to supply of DI Pipes to the concerned authority, that is, HMWS&SB, could be better appreciated. In other words, if the aforesaid material was placed before the authorities prior to 14th January, 2015 in all probability situation may have been different. However, we cannot at this stage predetermine how the authority would have reacted to the letter dated 11th December, 2014 where HMWS&SB appears to have clearly indicated what exactly was their intention in writing the letter dated 7th June, 2013, that is, whether they meant it as blacklisting or debarring the appellants or something else. 20. However, we cannot at this stage predetermine how the authority would have reacted to the letter dated 11th December, 2014 where HMWS&SB appears to have clearly indicated what exactly was their intention in writing the letter dated 7th June, 2013, that is, whether they meant it as blacklisting or debarring the appellants or something else. 20. Under the above situation, ends of justice would be best served if the respondent authorities are directed to consider the factual situation specially in the light of letter dated 11th December, 2014 written by HMWS&SB and then pass necessary order after proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14th January, 2015 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. 21. We allow the writ petition and also the writ appeal directing the respondent authorities to re-consider the matter afresh in the light of letters dated 7th September, 2013, 12th September, 2013 and 11th December, 2014 so far the real intention of HMWS&SB in issuing the letter dated 7th June, 2013 and pass necessary orders within one month from today. 22. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. 23. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application for stay ASTA 14 of 2015 is also disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs.