JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondents, i.e., Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (‘ONGC’). 2. By filing this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 23.5.2006 whereby it was banned from business dealings with ONGC on permanent basis as well as orders dated 1.8.2007 and 15.7.2014 whereby aforesaid order of banning was reiterated on reconsideration. 3. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Sivasagar in the State of Assam. It is engaged in the business of providing oil field related services, such as, drilling, stimulation, coil tubing operation and maintenance of acid pumping unit, nitrogen pumping unit, etc., all relating to exploration and drilling of crude oil. 4. It is stated that petitioner had good working relationship with ONGC and had executed the contract relating to operation and maintenance of three acid pumping units and one coil tubing operation pursuant to NIT bearing No. ER/NZR/OBG/IMP/SCON/WSS/5/57/94-95 which was floated during the year 1996. 5. A show-cause notice dated 15.11.2005 was issued to the petitioner by the ONGC, Assam Asset, Eastern Region, Nazira on 15.11.2005 alleging that petitioner had succeeded in getting the aforesaid contract on the basis of false certificate of acid pumping unit operation. In this connection, a complaint was made before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which was registered as RC 12(A) 2001-SHG relatable to Misc. Case No. 03/2004 (State v. Gyan Singh) before the court of Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati. CBI submitted final report before the court of Special Judge stating that materials on record were insufficient to try the accused persons in a criminal proceeding. Court of Special Judge vide order dated 9.8.2004 accepted the final report submitted by the CBI by holding the same to be justified. 6. Be it stated that against the show cause notice, petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court being WP(C) No. 8578/2005. However, on the ground that petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice and considering the facts of the case, impugned order dated 23.5.2006 was passed by the ONGC banning business dealings with the petitioner and associated firms on permanent basis. However, on the ground that petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice and considering the facts of the case, impugned order dated 23.5.2006 was passed by the ONGC banning business dealings with the petitioner and associated firms on permanent basis. However, it was made subject to outcome of WP(C) No. 8578/2005. 7. It appears that petitioner had assailed legality and correctness of the aforesaid order dated 23.5.2006 which was virtually an order of blacklisting by instituting a fresh writ proceeding before this court. The said round of litigation ended with an order by the Division Bench granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the ONGC for reconsideration of the impugned order. It was observed that the earlier writ petition WP(C) No. 8578/2005 had become infructuous. Following the same, petitioner submitted representation before the ONGC which was, however, rejected by order dated 1.8.2007 holding that there was no ground to modify the order dated 23.5.2006. 8. This again led to another round of litigation. Petitioner filed WP(C) No. 4622/2007 assailing such reiteration of the impugned order, which was finally dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.4.2013. Against such dismissal, petitioner preferred a writ appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 124/2013. The Division Bench took the view that denial of the petitioner that the certificate was false was not considered by the ONGC before passing the impugned order of blacklisting. Therefore, a view was taken that the matter would require fresh consideration by the ONGC. Accordingly, by order dated 13.5.2013, appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the ONGC for fresh consideration. 9. On remand and after reconsideration, ONGC passed the order dated 15.7.2014 holding that there was no merit in the submission of the petitioner which would require revisiting of the impugned order of blacklisting. 10. Hence, the present writ petition. 11. In this round of litigation, petitioner has specifically relied upon the Circular No. 24/2005 dated 30.6.2005 issued by the ONGC directing incorporation of ‘integrity pact’ in ONGC's tenders and contracts. As per section 3(1), if a contractor commits transgression of the nature mentioned in section 2 which impeaches his credibility, ONGC would be entitled to exclude the contractor from future contract award processes. However, imposition and duration of such exclusion would be dependent upon severity of the transgression. As per section 3(1), if a contractor commits transgression of the nature mentioned in section 2 which impeaches his credibility, ONGC would be entitled to exclude the contractor from future contract award processes. However, imposition and duration of such exclusion would be dependent upon severity of the transgression. It was specifically mentioned that exclusion would be for a minimum of 6 months and maximum of 3 years. 12. Noticing this aspect, court had issued notice on 8.11.2017. 12.1 Responding to the notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed a common affidavit justifying the impugned order of banning the petitioner on permanent basis. It is stated that due process was followed and after thorough enquiry, aforesaid decision was taken. CBI in its report dated 31.12.2003 had recommended to the ONGC to ban business dealings with the petitioner. It was pursuant to such report and other materials on record that show cause notice was issued on 15.11.2005 culminating in the order dated 23.5.2006. In such circumstances, contending that there is no merit answering respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. 14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. However, Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that even assuming but not admitting transgression by the petitioner, banning order cannot be for all times to come. In fact, as per the ‘integrity pact’ of ONGC itself, maximum period of banning is 3 years. Therefore, continuing with banning of the petitioner for more than 12 years now is clearly in violation of the legal mandate and cannot be justified. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dutta, has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (2014) 14 SCC 731 . 15. On the other hand, Mr. Sahewalla representing the ONGC submits that due opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Transgression of the petitioner is quite serious striking at the root of the tendering process. Insofar ‘integrity pact’ is concerned, he submits that this was not a part of the related tender documents and, therefore, this was not taken into consideration by the concerned authority. 16. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the court. Insofar ‘integrity pact’ is concerned, he submits that this was not a part of the related tender documents and, therefore, this was not taken into consideration by the concerned authority. 16. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the court. Also perused the materials on record. 17. Allegation against the petitioner as could be deciphered from the show cause notice is that it had succeeded in obtaining a contract from ONGC on the basis of false certificate relating to acid pumping unit operation. Petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice possibly because of pendency of writ petition but after considering the allegation against the petitioner, ONGC had passed the impugned order dated 23.5.2006 banning business dealings with the petitioner as well as associated firms on permanent basis from the date of issue of the said order. At a subsequent stage, it is seen that representation filed by the petitioner was considered but impugned decision of banning has been maintained. This decision of banning was taken and communicated to the petitioner on 23.5.2006. As submitted by Mr. Dutta, more than 12 years have gone by since then. 18. Though the expression ‘blacklisting’ has not been used in the impugned communication dated 23.5.2006, it is evident that consequence of banning business dealings with the petitioner amounts to ‘blacklisting’ of the petitioner. As per the impugned decision, this ‘blacklisting’ was on permanent basis. That means for all times to come. The show cause notice was issued on 15.11.2005 and the impugned decision was taken on 23.5.2006. 19. Prior to that, ONGC Headquarters had issued Circular No. 24/2005 dated 30.6.2005 directing incorporation of ‘integrity pact’ in ONGC's tenders and contracts. 20. While section 1 deals with commitments by the principal, i.e., ONGC, section 2 thereof deals with such commitments by bidder/contractor. The following principles are required to be observed by the bidder/contractor: “1. The bidder/contractor will not, directly or through any other person or firm, offer, promise or give to any of the Principal's employees involved in the tender process or the execution of the contract or to any third person any material or immaterial benefit which he/she is not legally entitled to, in order to obtain in exchange any advantage of any kind whatsoever during the tender process or during the execution of the contract. 2. 2. The bidder/contractor will not enter with other bidders into any undisclosed agreement or understanding whether formal or informal. This applies in particular to prices, specifications, certifications, subsidiary contracts, submission or non-submission of bids or any other actions to restrict competitiveness or to introduce cartelization in the bidding process. 3. The bidder/contractor will not commit any offence under the relevant Anti-Corruption Laws of India; further the bidder/contractor will not use improperly, for purposes of competition or personal gain, or pass on to others, any information or document provided by the Principal as part of the business relationship, regarding plans, technical proposals and business details, including information contained or transmitted electronically. 4. The bidder/contractor will, when presenting his bid, disclose any and all payments he has made, is committed to or intends to make to agents, brokers or any other intermediaries in connection with the award of the contract.” 21. That apart, the bidder/contractor will not instigate third persons to commit offences as above or to be an accessory to such offences. 22. Section 3 deals with disqualification from tender process and exclusion from future contracts. If the bidder before the contract is awarded has committed a transgression through violation of section 2 or similar such violations, which puts his reliability or credibility into question, principal, i.e., ONGC would be entitled to disqualify the bidder from the tender process or to terminate the contract if already signed for such reason. Sub-section (1) of section 3 is relevant and is extracted hereunder: “3. Disqualification from tender process and exclusion from future contracts: ********* (1) If the bidder/contractor has committed a transgression through a violation of section 2 such as to put his reliability or credibility into question, the Principal is entitled also to exclude the bidder/contractor from future contract award processes. The imposition and duration of the exclusion will be determined by the severity of the transgression. The severity will be determined by the circumstances of the case, in particular the number of transgressions, the position of the transgressors within the company hierarchy of the bidder and the amount of the damage. The exclusion will be imposed for a minimum of 6 months and maximum of 3 years.” 23. The severity will be determined by the circumstances of the case, in particular the number of transgressions, the position of the transgressors within the company hierarchy of the bidder and the amount of the damage. The exclusion will be imposed for a minimum of 6 months and maximum of 3 years.” 23. Thus, from the above, it is evident that if there is any transgression through violation of section 2 whereby reliability or credibility of the bidder/contractor is impeached, the principal, i.e., ONGC would be entitled to exclude the bidder/contractor from future contracts. However, such exclusion or duration of such exclusion will be determined by severity of the transgression. In any case, exclusion will be for a minimum of 6 months and maximum of 3 years. 24. As argued by Mr. Dutta even if it is transgression by the petitioner, as held by the principal, is accepted, maximum duration of exclusion, i.e., 3 years had expired long back in the year 2009. 25. Even though the word banning has been used, in the contextual facts of the case, the same is akin to the expression ‘blacklisting’. ‘Blacklisting’ has the effect of preventing a person from entering into a lawful contractual relationship with the Government for the purposes of gain. Considering the consequence which follows ‘blacklisting’, it is essential that principles of natural justice are followed before passing an order ‘blacklisting’ a business entity. 26. In Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., (1975) 1 SCC 70 , Supreme Court observed as under-go. 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.” 27. In Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra), the question which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. could have blacklisted the appellant from allotment of future contracts for all times to come. 28. Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra), examined the legal position governing ‘blacklisting’ of suppliers in the United States of America (USA) and in the United Kingdom (UK). 28. Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra), examined the legal position governing ‘blacklisting’ of suppliers in the United States of America (USA) and in the United Kingdom (UK). It was noticed that in USA, the expression ‘blacklisting’ is not used; rather the expression debarring is used in the statutes and by the courts. In both USA and UK, Supreme Court noted that debarment though recognized and acknowledged as an effective method of disciplining deviant suppliers and contractors, is never permanent and is limited by time. Period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring supplier or contractor. It was held, thus: “25. Suffice it to say that ‘debarment’ is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the ‘debarment’ is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.” 29. In that case, it was held that periods of debarment would be dependent upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches. However, the decision making process should be fair and reasonable and the ultimate debarment should be commensurate with the gravity or severity of the transgression. 30. In the instant case, considering the long lapse of time since passing of the order of banning, court is of the view that entering into the merit of the banning order at this point of time may not be a fruitful exercise. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the banning order is accepted at its face value, though not admitted, period of 3 years as per the ‘integrity pact’ which is the maximum period of debarment under the said pact had expired on 22.5.2009. 31. That being the position and having regard to the discussions made above, impugned order dated 23.5.2006 stands interfered with. It is made clear that the said order or decision ceased to have any legal enforceability with effect from 22.5.2009. In other words, the debarment order had spent its force with effect from 22.5.2009. 32. Writ petition is accordingly allowed but without any order as to cost.