JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28.1.2015 passed by respondent No. 2 putting the petitioner on holiday for a period of 1 year with effect from 28.1.2015, decision dated 23.2.2015 whereby respondent No. 1 decided to issue LOA to John Energy and going for re-tendering for remaining 3 rigs and the orders/communications dated 7.1.2014 and 23.6.2014 passed by the respondents. The facts in brief of the case are that on 1.10.2008, contract No. 9010010856 was awarded to petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 1 to drill exploratory wells of well depth range 6000 to 7000 metres from spud to completion for a period of three years effective from the date of completion of mobilization and spudding of first well. According to the petitioners, the said job was required to be carried out using one number of Type IV category Drilling Rig, capable of drilling up to 7000 metres at Sivasager (Assam Asset). The petitioner No. 1 deployed its Rig Shiv No. 50 under this contract. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 3.4.2012 second contract No. 9010015145 was awarded to petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 1 to hire one 1000 HP Mobile Drilling Rig for a period of three years for deployment in Non-PEL/ML area of Ahmedabad asset commencing from the date of completion of mobilization and spudding of first well. The petitioner No. 1 deployed Rig Shiv No. 39 under this contract. 3. It is further case of the petitioners that on 22.6.2012 third contract No. 9010015146 was awarded to petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 1 for providing 2 Nos. of Drilling Rigs, Type-III, upto the capacity of 6000 metres, minimum BHP-2000 for ONGC, Cauvery Basin, Karaikal commencing from the date of completion of mobilization and spudding of first well for a period of two years. The petitioner No. 1 deployed Rig Shiv Nos. 25 and 26 under this contract. 4. According to the petitioners, on 18.10.2013 respondent No. 1 issued 30 days three separate notices under clause Nos. The petitioner No. 1 deployed Rig Shiv Nos. 25 and 26 under this contract. 4. According to the petitioners, on 18.10.2013 respondent No. 1 issued 30 days three separate notices under clause Nos. 22.5, 3.5(1) and 3.9 of the Assam, Ahmedabad and Cauvery-Basin contract stating that in case petitioner No. 1 fails to rectify the deficiencies specified in the respective notices and commence drilling operations within 30 days from the date of this letter to the fullest satisfaction of respondent No. 1, further proceedings for termination may be initiated by respondents. 1. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners replied to notices dated 18.10.2013 vide its letters dated 30.10.2013. According to the petitioners, surprisingly, without giving any notice of any opportunity of being heard, respondent No. 1 passed an order on 7.1.2014 putting the petitioner on holiday for one year with effect from 1.1.2014 and decided not to consider any offer made by the petitioners for the period of one year with effect from 1.1.2014. Against the said order, the petitioners made various representations to the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No. 1 requesting him to withdraw the order dated 7.1.2014 and to consider the offer of the petitioner and open the price bid of the petitioners for work-over Rigs/. e. Tender No. BN6AC13001 for Charter hiring of 4 numbers of drilling rigs for Assam Asset. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of various representations made by the petitioners, the same have not been responded and surprisingly on 21.4.2014, respondent No. 1 issued notices terminating the contract of Ahmedabad and Assam in respect of Rig Nos. 39 and 50 respectively. According to the petitioners, there is no termination of contract in respect of Rig No. 26 and the contract was on-going and now it is over. The petitioners replied to the termination notices dated 21.4.2014 vide their letter dated 24.4.2014, inter alia, contending that in view of recommencement of operations, respondent No. 1 cannot take any action and termination notices dated 21.4.2014 are inoperative, null and void. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 issued two notices to petitioner No. 1 on 23.6.2014 for putting petitioner No. 1 on holiday for two years from the date the order putting petitioner No. 1 on holiday is issued by respondent No. 1 for the alleged deficiencies in contracts of Rig Nos. 39 and 50. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 issued two notices to petitioner No. 1 on 23.6.2014 for putting petitioner No. 1 on holiday for two years from the date the order putting petitioner No. 1 on holiday is issued by respondent No. 1 for the alleged deficiencies in contracts of Rig Nos. 39 and 50. The petitioners gave detailed reply along with supporting documents to the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioners made further representations on 11.8.2014, 19.8.2014, 6.9.2014 and 16.9.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 16301 of 2014. Pending the said petition, respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 28.1.2015 banning the business dealing with petitioner No. 1 along with their allied concerns, partners or associates or directors or proprietors. Subsequently, the said petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh petition challenging the order dated 28.1.2015. It is the case of the petitioners that on the very same day, another order was passed by respondent No. 1 putting the petitioner No. 1 on holiday for one year pursuant to inquiry report dated 4.6.2014 and addendum to the said report dated 16.1.2015. According to the petitioners, the whole action on the part of the respondent of putting the petitioner on holiday by the impugned order is clearly bad, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the recommendation of the inquiry officer. It is the case of the petitioners that the Inquiry Officer appointed in respect of Rig 39 (Ahmedabad) and Rig 50 (Assam) submitted his report on 28.8.2014 recommending not to put petitioner No. 1 on holiday. According to the petitioners, non-finalization of any Onshore Drilling Contract by respondent No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 1 and withholding payment over Rs. 750 crores smacks of mala fides and certainly unfair and arbitrary treatment to petitioner No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said action of respondent No. 1, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. 6. This Court issued the notice to the respondents on 11.3.2015 making it returnable on 13.3.2015. In pursuance of the said notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the affidavit-in-reply. The respondent No. 3 has also filed the affidavit-in-reply. The petitioners have also filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 6. This Court issued the notice to the respondents on 11.3.2015 making it returnable on 13.3.2015. In pursuance of the said notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the affidavit-in-reply. The respondent No. 3 has also filed the affidavit-in-reply. The petitioners have also filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, respondent ONGC has also filed the sur-rejoinder as well as additional affidavit sworn in by one Rakesh Kumar Yadav, working as Manager (MM) with the respondent ONGC. 7. We have heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M.O. Narsinghani, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S.K. Vishen, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 8. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M.O. Narsinghani, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order has serious civil consequences on the petitioners. In his submission, the said action on the part of respondent No. 1 smacks of mala fides as petitioner No. 1 has already undergone holiday for one year and in spite of the inquiry report observing that petitioner No. 1 should not be put on holiday and hence, the same is unfair, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Thakore has further contended that the impugned order is passed by the respondent without following the principles of natural justice as the same has civil consequences on the petitioners. Mr. Thakore has urged that the impugned orders are passed without considering the inquiry report and hence, the same are illegal and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India. He further contended that EPC has not at all considered the report dated 28.8.2014 prepared by the Inquiry Officer being quasi-judicial authority and ED-CDS has endorsed the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer not to put the petitioner on holiday/banning as mentioned in paragraph 7.1 of the EPC Note dated 16.2.2015. In his submission, therefore, very purpose of appointment and referring the matter to the Inquiry Officer is defeated as EPC has totally ignored his recommendations and taken the contrary view without any justification and reasons. In his submission, therefore, very purpose of appointment and referring the matter to the Inquiry Officer is defeated as EPC has totally ignored his recommendations and taken the contrary view without any justification and reasons. He further submitted that it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed after following the principles of natural justice and in the instant case, the same has been given go-bye. Lastly, Mr. Thakore submitted that the petitioners have suffered a huge financial loss and difficulties because of the conduct of the ONGC as has been observed by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report. 9. On the other-hand, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed this petition contending that the impugned orders passed by the respondent ONGC are just, proper and in consonance with the principles of natural justice as there is no requirement to give an oral hearing to the contractor. Mr. Trivedi vehemently urged that the respondent ONGC does not have any statutory provisions or guidelines applicable to the conduct of an inquiry for putting a contractor on holiday, requiring the furnishing of the inquiry report, regardless of the same being in favour of the contractor, before the final decision is taken in the matter by the higher authority. In his submission, therefore, in absence of such a statutory requirement, the respondent ONGC cannot be saddled with the requirement of furnishing a copy of the inquiry report with which the higher authority is not in agreement and of issuing a second show cause notice inviting further explanation from the contractor before any final decision is taken for putting the contractor on holiday. 10. Mr. Trivedi further urged that the principles of service jurisprudence which are applicable while dismissing a delinquent employee from service, more particularly where the Disciplinary Authority wants to take a different view than the favourable view taken by the Inquiry Officer cannot be imported in the matter of putting a contractor on holiday with reference to the contract involving commercial transaction. Trivedi further urged that the principles of service jurisprudence which are applicable while dismissing a delinquent employee from service, more particularly where the Disciplinary Authority wants to take a different view than the favourable view taken by the Inquiry Officer cannot be imported in the matter of putting a contractor on holiday with reference to the contract involving commercial transaction. He contended that the decision taken by the Executive Procurement Committee (EPC), after having taken into account the inquiry report as well as all other aspects, putting the petitioner company on holiday for a period of one year is just and proper which does not require interference by this Court. He further contended that controversy sought to be raised falls squarely within the realm of contract and that too in the realm of private dispute and not in the realm of public law and hence, the petition is not maintainable as the contract for which the tender was issued and in respect of which the grievance is raised by the petitioners is not a statutory contract. 11. Mr. Trivedi further argued that the report of the Inquiry Officer was for the consumption of the respondent-corporation. An inquiry gets concluded when final decision is taken on the report of the Inquiry Officer. In support of his submission, Mr. Trivedi relied upon following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "1. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (1975) 1 SCC 70 was cited for the proposition that some times duty to act fairly can also be sustained without providing opportunity for an oral hearing as it will depend upon the nature of the interest to be affected and the circumstances in which such power is exercised. 2. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Ors, VI (2001) SLT 449 : (2001) 8 SCC 604 was cited for the proposition that there is no statutory rule which requires that an approved contractor cannot be blacklisted without giving an opportunity of show cause. 3. 2. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Ors, VI (2001) SLT 449 : (2001) 8 SCC 604 was cited for the proposition that there is no statutory rule which requires that an approved contractor cannot be blacklisted without giving an opportunity of show cause. 3. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patel Engineering Limited v. Union of India & Anr., IV (2012) SLT 157 : 11 (2012) CLT 278 (SC) : (2012) 11 SCC 257 was cited for the proposition that the State can decline to enter into a contractual relationship with a person or a class of persons for a legitimate purpose and that there is no inviolable rule that a personal hearing of the affected party must precede every decision. 4. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors, III (2014) CLT 170 (SC) : VI (2014) SLT 732 : (2014) 9 SCC 105 was cited for the proposition that once a show-cause notice is issued and opportunity to reply to the show cause notice is afforded then there is no necessity to give an oral hearing. 5. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager. Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., VIII (2013) SLT 707 : IV (2013) CLT 178 (SC) : (2014) 14 SCC 731 was cited for the proposition that blacklisting simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach and that the realm of service jurisprudence do not apply to a company engaged in lucrative business. 6. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Ann, 1986 (SLT Soft) 149 : (1986) 3 SCC 156 was cited for the proposition that in certain circumstances the principle of natural justice can be modified and in exceptional cases can even be excluded and that the principle envisaged under Article14 of the Constitution of India may not apply strictly where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. 7. 7. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. v. Ramjee, 1977 (SLT Soft) 393 : (1977) 2 SCC 256 was cited for the proposition that natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure all and that if the totality of circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures. 8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, VI (2008) SLT 576 : (2008) 9 SCC 31 was cited for the proposition that even in service jurisprudence, charged employee must show that prejudice has been caused to him and in absence of such prejudice, non furnishing of report of the Inquiry Officer does not by itself renders punishment invalid. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.S. Motors Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 114 was cited for the proposition that the Court should not grant relief while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction on equitable considerations when one of the party to the contract has breached contractual stipulations and undeservedly enriched itself." 12. The submissions made by Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent No. 3 are in harmonious agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In support of his contentions, Mr. Mihir Joshi relied upon following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-- "1. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited & Ors, 193 (2012) DLT 76 (SC) : IV (2012) BC 469 (SC) : IV (2012) CLT 43 (SC) : (2013) 1 SCC 524 was cited for the proposition that in multi layered decision making process, at times they may strike discordant notes but that is natural and welcomed for it is only by independent deliberation that all possible facets of an issue are addressed and appropriate decision under the circumstances is shaped. 2. 2. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.C. Saxena v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 583 was cited for the proposition that this is not the case of disagreement of disciplinary authority with the findings of Inquiry Officer which would have required him to follow the statutory provision of issuing notice or recording reasons for the difference of opinion with Inquiry Officer." 13. On overall evaluation of the pleadings exchanged between the parties and contentions raised by the rival parties, only point raised for determination by this Court is whether in absence of any clear stipulation and detailed procedure in contract, how the action for putting the contractor on holiday for a particular period for the alleged poor performance in execution of the contract can be undertaken? 14. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question arises for our determination, we deem it proper to reproduce Clause 22.9 of the Contract No. 9010015145 for Ahmedabad asset and Contract No. 9010015146 for Cauvery Basin, Karaikal, as under: "22.9 Consequences of Termination-- 22.9.1 In all cases of termination herein set forth, the obligation of the Operator to pay the day rate and/or any other charges, shall be limited to the period up to the date of termination. In case of 'Termination with Notice', the Non-operating Day Rate will be applicable during the notice period i.e. till the contract is terminated under the provision. Notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement, the parties shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement that reasonably require some action or forbearance after such termination. In case of termination of Contract herein set forth, except under 22.1 and 22.2, 22.3, 33.8 and/or annulment of the contract due to non-submission of Performance Security, following actions shall be taken against the Contractor. In case of termination of Contract herein set forth, except under 22.1 and 22.2, 22.3, 33.8 and/or annulment of the contract due to non-submission of Performance Security, following actions shall be taken against the Contractor. (i) Operator shall conduct an inquiry against the Contractor and consequent to the conclusion of the inquiry, if it is found that the fault is on the part of the Contractor, then they shall be put on holiday [i.e. neither any tender enquiry will be issued to such a Contractor by Operator against any type of tender nor their offer will be considered by Operator against any ongoing tender(s) where contract between Operator and that particular Contractor (as a bidder) has not been concluded] for a period of two years from the date the order for putting the Contractor on holiday is issued. However, the action taken by Operator for putting that Contractor on holiday shall not have any effect on other ongoing contract(s), if any with that Contractor which shall continue till expiry of their term(s). (ii) Pending completion of the enquiry process for putting the Contractor on holiday, Operator shall neither issue any tender enquiry to the defaulting Contractor nor shall consider their offer in any ongoing tender." 15. Circular No. 11/2006 issued by the Operator for processing of cases for putting the erring firms on holiday/banning reads as under: "Circular No. 11/2006- It has come to notice that a work centre has issued orders for banning/holiday without the approval of competent authority and even without issue of show cause notice to the firm. This action of work centre without following principles of natural justice has been viewed seriously. In view of the above the instructions on the subject are hereby reiterated as under-- 1. Where decisions has been recorded by competent authority [i.e., C&MD] in a file to process the banning action upon a firm. xxx xxx xxx However, where based on the findings/recommendation of the inquiry officer and the replies submitted by the firm and all other related documents of the subject case, a review of the decision is required, then the key Executive of the work centre shall submit the case to concerned director/C&MD for reconsideration with due justification along with recommendations. 2. Cases originating from work centres for banning a firm. 2. Cases originating from work centres for banning a firm. The Key Executives at the work centre, being satisfied that prima facie is the case is fit for banning putting the firm on holiday, shall submit the case to the concerned Director for approval for initiating banning process against the erring firm. On approval of the same by concerned Director, an Inquiry Officer (who did not handle the case in any capacity) shall be nominated by the Key Executive for conducting the proceedings in the quasi-judicial capacity. The Inquiry Officer shall issue the show cause notice to the firm, monitor receipt of reply in given time and shall submit the inquiry report to the Key Executive of the work centre. The Key Executive shall peruse the Enquiry Report along with the replies submitted by the firm and all other related documents of the subject case. In case the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer are in line with the decision of concerned Director for initiating banning process, recorded earlier, after obtaining approval of concerned Director and C&MD, the Key Executive of work centre shall issue the order for banning of the firm along with the allied concern, partner or associate or director or proprietor involved in any capacity, etc. However, where based on the findings/recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and the replies submitted by the firm and all other related documents of the subject case, a review of the decision is required, the key Executive shall submit the case to concerned Director for reconsideration with due justification along with recommendations. xxx xxx xxx" 16. On evaluation of the aforesaid factual position, it clearly emerges that the respondent corporation was not happy with the functioning as well as execution of the contract on the part of the contractor and consequently, prior to setting up of inquiry for putting the contractor on holiday, the respondent corporation vide its order dated 7.1.2014 referring certain communications between the respondent corporation and contractor to put on holiday for one year from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2014 in tender for hiring of onshore rigs and further in the said order, the contractor was advised to immediately make good of deficiencies and comply with statutory and contractual requirement and improve performance in ongoing running contract. Admittedly, the aforesaid order which is at Annexure-G to the petition came to be passed by the respondent corporation on 7.1.2014 putting the contractor on holiday for a period of one year without resorting to any type of inquiry as envisaged under clause 22.9 of the terms of the contract entered into between the parties. Consequently, the aforesaid action on the part of the respondent corporation is manifestly illegal and unauthorized which cannot be sustained in law. 17. Thereafter, during continuance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Y.P. Singla, Deputy General Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer and he issued the show-cause notice upon his appointment as Inquiry Officer which is at Annexure-L to the petition, relevant part of which reads as under: ".....The Contractor is also requested to intimate if it needs any personal hearing to clarify its position to enable undersigned to fix up suitable date and time....." 18. Similar show-cause notice was also issued so far as another contract awarded to the contractor as regards to Assam Assets on the same line. Therefore, we are not reproducing the same. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the contractor has given detailed explanation as regards to the allegations set up against the contractor and each imputation as well as breach pointed out against the contractor has been explained in the aforesaid reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Inquiry Officer and further the contractor has also prayed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to clarify and explain all the details regarding the issue involved in the matter as the same was afforded in the show-cause notice. The reply to show-cause notice is at Annexure-M collectively to the petition. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer Mr. Y.P. Singla upon consideration of all the materials placed before him in the nature of various show cause notices as well as written explanation tendered by the contractor has given detailed report which is at Annexure-N1 to the petition. The report is very lengthy and the Inquiry Officer has almost dealt with all imputations as well as explanation and has also recorded the findings thereon and he has recorded ultimate conclusion as well as made recommendations in paragraphs 10 and 11 which read as under: "10.0 Conclusion-- ONGC policy vide Circular No. 23/2010 dated 9.7.2010, stipulates "....... The report is very lengthy and the Inquiry Officer has almost dealt with all imputations as well as explanation and has also recorded the findings thereon and he has recorded ultimate conclusion as well as made recommendations in paragraphs 10 and 11 which read as under: "10.0 Conclusion-- ONGC policy vide Circular No. 23/2010 dated 9.7.2010, stipulates "....... following aspects would need to be kept in mind while recommending the case for putting the erring firm on holiday: (i) Impact on competition in ONGC's tenders (ii) Past performance of the firm (iii) Intention of the defaulting party (iv) Reasons of default (v) Type of goods/services/LSTK tenders which would get affected". It is obvious that as per policy the long term interest of the organisation is also to be kept in mind while concluding the enquiry recommendations/proceedings. Let us revisit the vision of ONGC- To be the global leader in Integrated energy business through sustainable growth, knowledge excellence and exemplary governance practices. It is stated vision/mission of ONGC to acquire global leadership while retaining dominant position in Indian petroleum sector. ONGC is itself dominant in India and its subsidiary ONGC Videsh (OVL) is pursuing its global aspirations. Considering drilling operations to be critical for successful accomplishment of mission, quite rightfully ONGC management has supplemented ONGC's internal prowess in drilling operations by outsourcing partly drilling operations to contractors. Recalling a celebrity book "Competitive advantages of Nations" by Michael E. Porter, it is an accepted wisdom today that for nations to succeed persistently globally, fierce competition in domestic market is conducive and helpful. Therefore, it will be in ONGC's long term interest to ensure fierce competition in domestic Indian market. M/s. Shiv-Vani being country's largest fleet holder of drilling equipment (as also confirmed by ICICI Bank), should not only survive but also grow to be a most competitive and economically strong drilling contractor (along with others) in the long term interest of ONGC. As such, ONGC shall benefit nothing by putting it on holiday but will definitely jeopardize M/s. Shiv-Vani's chances of survival despite CDR approval. OIL India's withdrawal of banning order and relief granted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Instead of putting on holiday, ONGC should be allowing M/s. Shiv-Vani business opportunities to compete but should not allow any relaxations/undue preferences to it. Contractually highest standards of service in terms of quality and efficiency should be demanded and implemented. OIL India's withdrawal of banning order and relief granted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Instead of putting on holiday, ONGC should be allowing M/s. Shiv-Vani business opportunities to compete but should not allow any relaxations/undue preferences to it. Contractually highest standards of service in terms of quality and efficiency should be demanded and implemented. Ideally, M/s. Shiv-Vani and other domestic contractors, should become strong drilling contractors so that they just do not support ONGC's domestic operations for securing energy needs of our great nation but also they should provide support to OVL's global operations so as to acquire ONGC's vision of acquiring "Global leadership". Towards this, as a policy, ONGC may even consider, small equity investments in (some of the) Indian drilling contractors so that some Observer Directors can be nominated on their respective Boards who can oversee their operations (without unduly interfering too much) with a win-win approach, and help such drilling Contractors become strong International players who will be vital in ensuring ONGC's dominant position in India and global leadership, in search of hydrocarbons. With above approach, let us review the events of this case- ONGC awards a domestic Indian drilling contractor an 8 rig contract on the premise that it will buy new rigs. It borrowed huge sums and places order on foreign manufacturer/s. Mobilisation is delayed repeatedly. ONGC levies L/D, agrees for extension but with reduction in day rates? (From 0% to 30%, beyond contractual provisions-instead of termination of contracts). OEC recommended payments in favour of the Contractor, and its settlement (by way of acceptance/rejection/negotiated settlement of OEC recommendations) is yet to be resolved even after more than three years of referral of dispute to OEC i.e. 17.2.2011. Repayments of Loan and interest thereof, is likely to catch up with any company. Further contractor's requests for releasing withhold payments against many contracts (though extraneous to these cases) would have some adverse impact on contractor's capacity to discharge its contractual obligations. Against Contract No. 9010015145, out of six wells drilled, the contractor submits that two wells have been drilled ahead of planned period proving the contractor can do it, and the contractor has accepted that it is only financial weakness that has affected its performance. Further, ST authorities' instructions were not helpful to anyone as all payments were demanded to it, leaving nothing for contractor to survive/sustain its operations. Further, ST authorities' instructions were not helpful to anyone as all payments were demanded to it, leaving nothing for contractor to survive/sustain its operations. Hon'ble High Court has given an award which is in long term interest of all stake holders. It is also a fact that despite deficiencies, the contractor rig was operating when the contract was terminated on 21.4.2014. In view of above, in the long term interest of ONGC, M/s. Shiv-Vani does not deserves to be put on holiday further, keeping the following also in view-- (i) The contractor has already been penalised as brought out in Para 9.3. (ii) SGI has advised/opined a negotiated commercial settlement as against further litigation as no one can vouchsafe its outcome. (iii) OEC and two legal opinions given by two Retired Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court, being in favour of the Contractor on the vital issue of reduction in rates by ONGC. (iv) Impact on Competition will be adverse particularly in tenders of ONGC for hiring of onshore drilling rigs, in case of putting the contractor on holiday. The above is in line with revoking of debarment by OIL India Ltd., CDR implementation by lender Banks (led by ICICI Bank) and decision of Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi regarding sharing of payments between M/s. Shiv-Vani (to day-to-day operations) and Govt. of India (towards ST dues) in the interest of continuance of business. 11.0 Recommendations- In view of above, it is recommended not to put the firm M/s. Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd., New Delhi on holiday/banning of business dealing with ONGC. Sd/- 28.8.2014 (Y.P. Singla) DGM-I/c MM Inquiry Officer" 19. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Key Officer and he has recommended to place the matter before the Director and the Director has recommended to discuss the issue in EPC comprising Chief Managing Director as well as other five Directors along with other invitees and the aforesaid EPC after considering the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer Mr. Y.P. Singla in detail passed the impugned order. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce certain record note of discussions took place in the aforesaid EPC as under: "xxx xxx xxx 5. As per PMC Circular No. 11/2006 dated 30.5.2006, EO has submitted his inquiry observations, findings and recommendations in the form of an Inquiry Report dated 28.8.2014 to the competent authority. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce certain record note of discussions took place in the aforesaid EPC as under: "xxx xxx xxx 5. As per PMC Circular No. 11/2006 dated 30.5.2006, EO has submitted his inquiry observations, findings and recommendations in the form of an Inquiry Report dated 28.8.2014 to the competent authority. Enquiry observations, findings and recommendations in the Inquiry Report dated 28.8.2014 have been submitted by the EO in the capacity of a quasi judicial authority and hence, Tender Committee feels that it would be beyond its purview to comment on that. A view may be taken by Competent Authority based on the recommendations of the Key Executive, as per PMC Circular No. 11/2006. 5.1 As regards the initiation of banning of business dealings with M/s. Shiv-Vani consequent to termination of contract awarded by Onshore Engineering Services, it is learnt that a separate Inquiry Officer (EO) has already submitted his inquiry observations, findings and recommendations to the Competent Authority." 20. Indisputably, the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, Mr. Y.P. Singla, as referred above, as well as the report submitted by the EPC are ex parte quasi-judicial proceedings as envisaged in clause 22.9 undertaken by the Inquiry Officer as well as EPC and indisputably, the decision of putting the contractor on holiday for a period of one year commences from 28.1.2015 is ex parte proceedings, without giving any opportunity of hearing as well as except in the inquiry undertaken by the Inquiry Officer as well as EPC in response to the show-cause notice dated 28.6.2014 only written explanation was asked for and only upon consideration of written explanation even though he was offered personal hearing in case if the contractor asked for though such opportunity was not granted. The inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer Mr. Y.P. Singla, report of which is voluminous as well as inquiry undertaken by EPC is also voluminous and that have been indisputably carried out by both the authorities in the manner of in-house proceedings and the aforesaid reports are also kept confidential and indisputably, the said reports were never furnished or never made known to the contractor. The aforesaid two documents were produced during the course of hearing of the present writ petition by the respondent corporation. 21. The aforesaid two documents were produced during the course of hearing of the present writ petition by the respondent corporation. 21. The astonishing fact as emerges is that the Inquiry Officer has made voluminous report which was further proceeded before the EPC and both the proceedings were in-house proceedings althroughout and relying upon the aforesaid two proceedings, the respondent corporation has passed the impugned order which is at Annexure-A to the petition. The impugned order passed by GGM Head Mud Corporate, Officiating Chief Drilling Services, ONGC, Mumbai is very cryptic, unreasoned and hence, it is non-speaking order. 22. In order to appreciate the issue arisen in the matter, it is necessary to extract relevant portion of the impugned order as under: "xxx xxx xxx (G) AND WHEREAS, Show Cause Notices dated 23.6.2014 against respective Contracts were issued by inquiry officer to the Contractor, to show-cause by 23.7.2014 as to why the Contractor, M/s. Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. should not be put on holiday for two years from the date of issuance of the order for committing breach of Contract No. BDA/ONSG/MM/DS/CH-DRIGS/84/2011/CAT-3/9010015145 and Contract No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D.DRIGS/11/2007/BNGPCO7003 (SAP Contract No. 9010010856). (H) AND WHEREAS, on receipt of reply dated 4.6.2014 (erroneously mentioned instead of 4.7.2014) against Contract No. BDA/ONSG/MM/DS/CH-DRTGS/84/2011/CAT-3/9010015145 dated 3.7.2014 and against Contract No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D.DRIGS/11/2007/BNGPCO7003 (SAP Contract No. 9010010856) from the Contractor and after conducting proper inquiry and impartial, prudent and careful consideration to the facts and after giving ample and sufficient opportunity to the Contractor, the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion with his report dated 28.8.2014 that the Contractor was admittedly, not able to perform as per the contractual requirement, resulting in losses to ONGC and therefore is at fault for non-performance of the Contract. Hence, after considering above facts and circumstances, ONGC has decided to stop any further business dealings with M/s. Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd., Tower No. 1, 5th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Sector-V, Pushp Vihar, Saket, New Delhi-100017 along with its allied concerns, partners or associates or directors or proprietors involved in any capacity, etc. for participation in tenders of ONGC, whatsoever for a period of 01 (one) year from the date of issuance of this office order i.e. dated 28.1.2015." 23. for participation in tenders of ONGC, whatsoever for a period of 01 (one) year from the date of issuance of this office order i.e. dated 28.1.2015." 23. The above narrated scenario clearly mentions that respondent corporation set up the inquiry by appointing the Inquiry Officer and who after issuance of the show cause notice and seeking written explanation without granting any personal hearing rendered the report which came to be processed before various competent authorities of the respondent corporation. The competent authority did not agree with the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and took the report into review and it was processed before the Director and the Director recommended further discussion before the EPC. Indisputably, initially, written explanation was accepted from the Contractor. Thereafter, neither official who have proceeded further for review of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer nor EPC has granted any opportunity of submitting written explanation as well as personal hearing against the proposed contemplated action to be undertaken against the Contractor. 24. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, defence raised by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent corporation as well as Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent is that once the show-cause notice is issued and an opportunity of showing the cause is afforded at the initial stage, there is no necessity for supplying the report of the Inquiry Officer as well as to give any further opportunity of showing cause or personal hearing in the review proceedings undertaken by the executives of the respondent corporation as well as EPC. In support of their arguments, they have placed reliance on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein principle is laid down that opportunity of only showing cause is required to be given before taking any action of blacklisting and no personal hearing is required to be given. However, if we appreciate the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its totality then one would find that the said decisions hover upon compliance of principles of natural justice as a pre-requisite condition. 25. However, if we appreciate the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its totality then one would find that the said decisions hover upon compliance of principles of natural justice as a pre-requisite condition. 25. In this view of the matter, it is evidently noticed that the executives as well as EPC of the respondent corporation who have processed the review proceedings themselves have narrated that the proceedings undertaking against the Contractor for putting on holiday/banning is in the nature of quasi-judicial and even the Inquiry Officer was also very much conscious that the inquiry to be undertaken by him is also in the nature of quasi-judicial and, therefore, in the show cause notice itself, he has given option of personal hearing to the Contractor which was even demanded by the Contractor in the explanation itself though it was neither granted by the Inquiry Officer nor by EPC i.e. reviewing authority. 26. Blacklisting or putting on holiday causes economic loss and perhaps cast a slur on the reputation of a contractor. Where a person is likely to suffer particular loss from the decision, the necessity of candor is that much higher. The authority must not place a party at a disadvantage by depriving him of an adequate opportunity of commenting on material relevant to their decision, if it is gleaned from an outside source or in the course of their own investigations. A public authority owes a duty to exercise its functioning in accordance with fair procedure. Procedural fairness is a constantly evolving concept. There is a broad range of requirements, which vary according to the context in which the public function is exercised, including (a) to give a notice of a proposed decision before making it, (b) to consult and receive written representation, (c) to disclose information before a final decision is reached, (d) a right to be afforded for giving reasons explaining why a decision or action was taken. There is a presumption that procedural fairness is required whenever the exercise of power adversely affects an individual's right protected by law including right under a Government or Corporation contract. Depriving the petitioner of a proper opportunity to put his case will normally constitute a presumption of substantial prejudice. 27. The argument advanced by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. Depriving the petitioner of a proper opportunity to put his case will normally constitute a presumption of substantial prejudice. 27. The argument advanced by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel that since the proceedings putting the Contractor on holiday/banning is purely administrative action and has arisen out of the contractual relationship and hence, in absence of any statutory rules, observance of principles of natural justice in strict sense in the nature of affording an opportunity of showing cause on each stage of inquiry as well as at the time of making the final order of putting the Contractor on holiday/banning is not required to be followed. This argument is simply not acceptable in view of the mechanism developed by the respondent corporation itself by issuing Circular No. 11/2006 providing decision making process in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings as well as the same is also revealed from the show-cause notice dated 23.6.2014 issued by the Inquiry Officer stating therein that the Contractor to intimate if he needs any personal hearing to clarify his position. In this view of the matter, as evident from the show-cause notice providing an opportunity of personal hearing as well as detailed circular of the respondent corporation mentions the proceedings as "quasi-judicial" itself clarifying the position that while undertaking the proceedings in the nature of putting the Contractor on holiday/banning requires observance of principles of natural justice in the nature of showing cause as well as personal hearing to the Contractor before making the final order. Failure to give reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer is irrational. It is an implied rule of law that any action entailing economic loss should be taken after following the principles of natural justice and it is an elementary principle of natural justice that the affected parties should not be deprived of a proper opportunity to put their case effectively. 28. Indisputably, the respondent corporation has not provided the inquiry report as well as not afforded any participation of the Contractor before the reviewing authority who has recommended to pass the impugned order of placing the Contractor on holiday/banning. 28. Indisputably, the respondent corporation has not provided the inquiry report as well as not afforded any participation of the Contractor before the reviewing authority who has recommended to pass the impugned order of placing the Contractor on holiday/banning. It is required to be noted that in the impugned order it has been mentioned that "after conducting proper inquiry and impartial, prudent and careful consideration to the facts and after giving ample and sufficient opportunity to the Contractor, the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion with his report dated 28.8.2014 that the Contractor was admittedly, not able to perform as per the contractual requirement, resulting in losses to ONGC and therefore is at fault for non-performance of the Contract" clearly appears to be not in consonance with the material available on record as contended by Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners for the reason that except one opportunity of showing cause in the nature of submitting written explanation, no other opportunity was granted in the nature of showing cause at the stage of review by the EPC. 29. A bare perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A to the petition clearly demonstrates that the order appears to have been passed upon the inquiry report submitted by Mr. Y.P. Singla, Inquiry Officer which has been taken in review by EPC though the impugned order itself is very cryptic, unreasoned, non-speaking and violative of principles of natural justice as the impugned order as per the say of the respondents themselves has been issued upon the decision taken in the review proceedings and no opportunity of any kind has been afforded to the Contractor. No reasons have been assigned by the respondents while arriving at the finding of poor performance as the same does not clearly revealing in the inquiry report. Precisely, neither the impugned order is in consonance with the recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer nor it is in consonance with the observance of the principles of natural justice as it is based upon the decision of the reviewing authority. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-A to the petition passed by the respondent ONGC deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-A to the petition passed by the respondent ONGC deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.1.2015 at Annexure-A to the petition passed by the respondent ONGC is quashed and set aside along with all consequential orders arising out of the same. However, it is made clear that the respondent ONGC are at liberty to take appropriate action and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity to the petitioners to put their case effectively. No order as to costs. After the judgment was pronounced, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 jointly requested that operation of the judgment be stayed for a period of six weeks. We do not find any reason to stay our order pronounced today. Oral request made by learned Counsel for the respondents is rejected.