JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. Rule. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. 2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs : "A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting the impugned circular/order dated 3.4.2018 issued/passed by respondent No.2 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. B. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to grant stay of operation, execution and implementation of impugned order/circular dated 3.4.2018 issued by respondent No.2, in the interest of justice; C. An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted in the interest of justice; D. Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is an ISO 9001:2008 certified company engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing of enclosures of energy meters, LT/HT Distribution Boxes and Panels, Junction Boxes, Feeder Pillars and other Power Distribution and Circuit protection switchgears made from mild steel, stainless steel in fabrication and deep drawn process along with sheet moulding compound and build moulding compound materials. The factory of the petitioner is spread across 8 lacs sq. ft. with a well equipped wide range machineries and other handling equipments so as to ensure the quality of manufacturing process and product. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.9.2015, the petitioner made an application for Vendor Registration Certificate to the respondent No.2 and along with said application, the petitioner provided all relevant materials and particulars so demanded including manpower list, plant and machinery particulars and the source of raw materials. Pursuant to said application, the respondent No.2 forwarded the form to respondent No.1 for scrutiny which was verified and having satisfied about the merit of the petitioner, constituted an inspection committee and directed the said committee to personally visit the factory premises. Pursuant to said application, the respondent No.2 forwarded the form to respondent No.1 for scrutiny which was verified and having satisfied about the merit of the petitioner, constituted an inspection committee and directed the said committee to personally visit the factory premises. It is further the case of the petitioner that inspection committee consisting of inspectors and technical members of respondent No.1 visited the factory premises on 12.1.2017 and assessed the method of manufacture and quality control etc., reported to respondent No.2 for onward action. Pursuant to said report of respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 authority issued Vendor Registration Certificate to the petitioner on 12.2.2016 with respect to following four products; (i) Single Phase SMC Meter Box as per IS:14772 and 13410 (ii) Three Phase SMC Meter Box as per IS:14772 and 13410 (iii) Three Phase LT CT Meter Box as per IS:14772 and 13410 and (iv) FRP 'V' Cross Arm with accessories as per IS:10192-1998, IS:6746-1994 and IS:13410-1992." 3.1 This Vendor Registration Certificate was subject to certain conditions stipulated therein and registration was granted for a period of 5 years. Resultantly, the petitioner was approved vendor for the purpose of manufacturing and supplying the aforesaid products, having found eligible. In turn, since the petitioner became eligible for participating in tender process, filled in the tender bid and has been awarded tenders by PGVCL and DGVCL etc. from time to time with respect to supply of a product i.e. 11 KV FRP 'V' Cross Arm with accessories, a tender was floated by PGVCL in the month of January, 2016 and the form which has been filled up was opened up on 15.2.2016. The bid offered by the petitioner was in consonance with the expectation of the said company and accordingly, the tender of the petitioner was accepted on 4.5.2016 and the acceptance of the tender was communicated by PGVCL to the petitioner. The petitioner has met with all the rigors mentioned in the agreement for supplying the above-mentioned product and there has been no complaint from the said company and the agreement with PGVCL is still in vogue. It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner has also participated in similar way with respect to tender which has been floated by DGVCL with respect to 11 KV FRP 'V' Cross Arm with accessories. The DGVCL has also in the similar way issued acceptance order on 8.11.2017. It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner has also participated in similar way with respect to tender which has been floated by DGVCL with respect to 11 KV FRP 'V' Cross Arm with accessories. The DGVCL has also in the similar way issued acceptance order on 8.11.2017. The tender was with respect to supply of 6750 sets of 11 KV FRP 'V' Cross Arm with accessories. The officers of DGVCL have also in the similar way regularly inspected the product supplied by the petitioner and submitted satisfactory reports in the month of December, 2017 and January, 2018. 3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner that surprisingly, on 23.2.2018, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner which actually received on 5.3.2018, inter-alia calling upon the petitioner as to why the Vendor Registration Certificate should not be terminated. As per the say of the petitioner, said show-cause notice was issued on the premise that petitioner has supplied false documents along with application for vendor registration. Said show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner, as a result of this vide communication dated 17.3.2018 informed that allegations are baseless and the documents which are referred to in the show-cause notice are not false. It has also been contended that show-cause notice does not form part of the application preferred by the petitioner for getting Vendor Registration Certificate and, therefore, by detailing out the explanation, a request is made to recall the notice. Even subsequently on 20.3.2018, the petitioner apprised respondent No.2 about the certificate issued by Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and the petitioner has expressed willingness to furnish the same as and when the petitioner is called upon. It is the case of the petitioner that since respondent No.2 has not provided relevant documents which are relied upon and forming part of the show-cause notice, on 24.3.2018 the petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act requesting the authority to provide certified copy of the inspection report dated 12.1.2016. Pending this application for consideration, the petitioner has not been provided any information and the petitioner was expecting that respondent No.2 would call upon the petitioner for personal hearing for satisfaction of said solitary act complained of in the show-cause notice. Pending this application for consideration, the petitioner has not been provided any information and the petitioner was expecting that respondent No.2 would call upon the petitioner for personal hearing for satisfaction of said solitary act complained of in the show-cause notice. However, to the utter shock and surprise, without calling for personal hearing, the respondent authority took a drastic step of cancelling the Vendor Registration Certificate vide order dated 3.4.2018. The consequences of this harsh action has entailed civil consequences and huge repercussions and ramification on the entire business of the petitioner and the on-going projects of supply which are in existence, pursuant to such Vendor Registration Certificate. The petitioner has applied for bidding in various other tenders as well which are likely to be opened up in near future. By that time this cancellation of vendor registration decision is taken in gross violation of principles of natural justice. As a result of this, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. P.Y. Jasani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 5. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. P.Y. Jasani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that originally when Vendor Registration Certificate was granted, even physical verification was also undertaken by the officers of the company. The detailed report was submitted and it was issued only after proper scrutiny and, therefore, there was no germane reason for calling upon the petitioner to show cause for cancellation of registration. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that the allegation which has been levelled in the show-cause notice was serious in nature and, therefore, the petitioner requested the authority to supply the relevant documents so as to see that the petitioner can meet with properly and defend itself. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that the allegation which has been levelled in the show-cause notice was serious in nature and, therefore, the petitioner requested the authority to supply the relevant documents so as to see that the petitioner can meet with properly and defend itself. So much so that on 24.3.2018, the petitioner was constrained to apply under Right to Information Act for the certified of inspection report dated 12.1.2016 but, the same had not been provided and though enough explanation was given, the authority, without granting any opportunity of personal hearing, straightway, passed an order of cancellation of Vendor Registration Certificate which action has got serious civil consequences and, therefore, based upon this main submission the order which has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, learned Senior Advocate has requested the Court to set aside the same by granting the relief as prayed for. 5.1 Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, has further contended that though the petitioner has categorically mentioned in the reply the list which has never been supplied to the petitioner along with application for Vendor Registration Certificate. But the same forms the part of one tender document and, therefore, the question of supplying all these documents would not arise as the said list was never supplied to the petitioner. It has been contended that had the opportunity been given, the petitioner would have brought to the notice of authority and explained in its true spirit and, therefore also, the order passed by the authority is not only arbitrary but, tilted with malafies and suffers from non-application of mind. 5.2 Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted the principle of natural justice is applicable to whole range of exercise of power whether its administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial and here is a case in which serious allegations are levelled for initiating the action and, therefore, it is obligatory on the part of authority to act in fair manner and action must be on the touchstone of compliance of principles of natural justice. On the contrary, as per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has not supplied to said authority the product in question i.e. 11 KV FRP'V' cross arm and the certificate dated 19.3.2018 issued by the very authority i.e. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. In fact, according to learned Senior Advocate, as a matter of fact the petitioner has successfully supplied the product in question to Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and, therefore, the solitary ground on which the impugned order has been passed, has no substance at all. Considering this situation, a request is made to the Court to set aside the impugned order as the same has been passed by depriving the petitioner on effective opportunity of explanation. On the contrary, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the petitioner has not only successfully concluded the assignment of supplying the product in question but, has also met with the specifications mentioned in the contract and, therefore, there was no earthly reason available for the respondent authority to take the step in such a stringent manner. The reason which has been assigned has also been wrongly recorded. But, in any case, even if the authority is of the view that some mischief is being played then, appropriate opportunity even on the aspect of principles of fair play in action must have been given and undisputedly, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. It has, therefore, been contended that when the action is entailing civil consequences, there is no question of not complying with the principles of natural justice. In fact, a fair hearing and the opportunity to explain must have been given. Even if the Rules are silent and that is the law laid down by series of decisions and, therefore, it is canvassed that personal hearing ought to have been given. Learned Senior advocate has then relied upon the decisions reported in case of (i) Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and Others reported in, (1989) AIR SC 620 (ii) M/s. Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Another reported in, (1994) AIR SC 1277 (iii) M/s.Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief Gen. Manager, WT Proj. BSNL and Others reported in, (2014) AIR SC 9 and a decision rendered in SCA No.4263 of 2015 and SCA No.1329 of 2014. Manager, WT Proj. BSNL and Others reported in, (2014) AIR SC 9 and a decision rendered in SCA No.4263 of 2015 and SCA No.1329 of 2014. 5.3 By referring to aforesaid decisions, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that no opportunity of hearing is given and this fact is not disputed even in the reply which has been submitted and, therefore, only on this count, without going into other details the order in question deserves to be quashed. 5.4 Additionally, learned Senior Advocate has specifically contended that other company similarly situated to the petitioner, has been given personal hearing, whereas the petitioner has not been afforded such opportunity. Hence, the order in question is nullity, the same deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. It has also been contended that material which has been relied upon which is foundation of the action initiated against the petitioner, has not been supplied, though demanded specifically. Even under the provisions of Right to Information Act, a demand is made but, the same has not been supplied and, therefore, serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner for making effect representation and it is settled position of law that if any material is to be relied upon and becoming foundation of the action, the same will have to be given and put to the notice to the person against whom the action is to be initiated and, therefore, this is nothing but a clear violation of opportunity concept in the petition. 5.5 Learned Senior Advocate has further contended that the action on the part of authority is not only suffers from violation of principles of natural justice but, is also based upon the discrimination. It is submitted that Asiatic Company which is also similarly situated to the petitioner company, has been given personal opportunity of hearing, whereas in case of petitioner not only no hearing was given but, even the material which has been relied upon is also not served and as such, the action is ex-facie violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5.6 Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the show-cause notice as well as the final order is not reflecting FRP and, therefore, by way of submitting reply the petitioner cannot improve upon and justify the illegal action by submitting and explaining in affidavit-in-reply to the present proceeding and, therefore, relying upon a decision delivered by the Apex Court reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95 , it has been contended that certificate of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. is not vogue nor false in any manner and the action which is initiated is ex facie erroneous. As a result of this, the petition deserves to be allowed. It has further been contended that here is a case in which the Vendor Registration Certificate, after completing the entire formality, has been given and, therefore, there was no other reason justifiably available to allege against the petitioner of any mischief or misrepresentation. On the contrary, it is the officers of the company, who physically verified, took all the details and thereafter, report was prepared by respondent No.1 and then, respondent No.2 has granted the certificate and, therefore, there is no question of any misrepresentation or falsehood to be attributed against the petitioner and accordingly, the action which has got irreparable and irreversible injury, the same is required to be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice. No other submissions have been made. 6. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently contended that there is no question of discriminating the petitioner in any form. On the contrary, the petitioner has misled the authority. Not only that but an attempt has also been made in the present proceeding by submitting information which are not ground reality and, therefore also, no equitable jurisdiction to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Dave, learned advocate, after referring to the list of documents which were supplied, has contended that no full details have been provided and the IS Code which has been mentioned by the petitioner is related to FGRP and, therefore, the petitioner has not come with clean hands. Mr. Dave, learned advocate, after referring to the list of documents which were supplied, has contended that no full details have been provided and the IS Code which has been mentioned by the petitioner is related to FGRP and, therefore, the petitioner has not come with clean hands. What has been submitted by the petitioner were not the proper recourse but, in fact, the petitioner was required to submit test result of a relevant material and the test reports are of that FGRP i.e. Fiber Glass Reinforced Plastic and other material which has been supplied so far earlier by the petitioner was related to fiber and, therefore, there is a clear misleading attempt by the petitioner. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was caught, he came out with a material i.e. FRP and, therefore, a complete misrepresentation was there on the part of petitioner in respect of dealing with authority and hence, the authority has rightly come to the conclusion and just and proper action is taken which does not call for any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 6.1 Mr. Dave, learned advocate, by referring to Page-101 (Annexure-6), has contended that even after granting an opportunity, nothing comes on as the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice are not possible to be disputable by the petitioner and, therefore, the compliance of principle of natural justice would remain as an empty formality. 6.2 Mr. Dave, learned advocate, has further contended that there was specific compliance of principles of natural justice and here is a case in which whenever there is a contractual dispute arise, there is no question of granting any personal opportunity of hearing. However, there is a substantial compliance of such principle, the order may not be set aside on that count and substantial compliance can be seen from the statement dated 14.9.2017. Learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands, as a result of which there is no question of granting any equitable relief in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Dave, learned advocate, has further submitted that the test reports which are submitted are also that of fiber glass and knowing fully well that they were dealing in fibers, still misrepresented before the authority and secured the tender. As a result of this, cancellation of Vendor Registration Certificate is a just and proper action. Mr. Dave, learned advocate, has further submitted that the test reports which are submitted are also that of fiber glass and knowing fully well that they were dealing in fibers, still misrepresented before the authority and secured the tender. As a result of this, cancellation of Vendor Registration Certificate is a just and proper action. There are serious allegations levelled about the fabricated material relied upon at the time of obtaining the Vendor Registration Certificate and as such, simply because the same has been granted, it should not automatically result in setting aside the order on hyper technicality. In fact, the petition contains series of disputed question of fact and, therefore, in view of settled position of law laid down by catena of decisions, the writ jurisdiction is not proper remedy in respect of the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner. The detailed narration about the conduct and about supply of material is reflecting from the affidavit-in-reply which has been relied upon and, therefore, since the petitioner itself was having knowledge about it, simply because the order is passed against the petitioner, the same may not be allowed to be assailed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. To substantiate the overall submission made by Mr. Dave, learned advocate, has relied upon following decisions with an ultimate request to dismiss the petition in limine; (i) MC Mehta v. Union of India reported in, (1999) 6 SCC 237 , (ii) Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation ltd. reported in, (2005) 7 SCC 764 (iii) Tanna & Modi v. CIT, Mumbai reported in, (2007) 7 SCC 434 (iv) S P Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath reported in, (1994) 1 SCC 1 (v) Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibers (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in, (1996) 5 SCC 550 and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi reported in, (2003) 8 SCC 319 and by referring to these decisions, a request is made to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned advocates representing the respective parties and having gone through in detail the record of the present petition, it appears that some of the circumstances are not possible to be ignored by this Court, while finally disposing of the present petition. 7. Having heard the learned advocates representing the respective parties and having gone through in detail the record of the present petition, it appears that some of the circumstances are not possible to be ignored by this Court, while finally disposing of the present petition. (1) First of all, a bare look of the impugned order/circular dated 3.4.2018 is indicating that relying upon the letter dated 14.9.2017, the allegation is made that there were false documents submitted and the reply found to be not satisfactory. A mischief is committed with UGVCL in submission of list of order of item FRP 'V' Cross Arm with accessories. Resultantly, for a period of 2 years, the authority has cancelled the Vendor Registration Certificate and stopped to deal with M/s. RMC Switchgears Limited and all concern were placed to the notice of same. Now, this order which has been passed has reflected that on account of serious allegations of misrepresentation and false document, the action is initiated and for that, the reply was considered and then, action is taken. However, it does not indicate that any opportunity of hearing was given nor has any reference about the supply of documents and the material which was sought by the petitioner vide specific letter and requested under Right to Information Act and, therefore, it appears that the material which has been relied upon while arriving at a conclusion about mischief being played by the petitioner appears to have not been supplied so far. (2) Now, to this there is a specific contention raised by the petitioner in Para.(B) and (C) to the effect that non-supply of this and non-granting of hearing has got a serious prejudice and has violated his right of making effective representation and, therefore, it appears from bare reading of an order that same is passed in conflict with principles of natural justice. (3) The affidavit-in-reply which has been submitted has no clear answer with regard to such grant of opportunity and, therefore, there appears to be violation of principles of natural justice. On the contrary, in Para.12, the authority has opposed such contention by simply asserting that right of hearing is not to be granted in contractual matters. Two show-cause notices have been given to the petitioner and that was sufficient enough to comply the principles of natural justice. On the contrary, in Para.12, the authority has opposed such contention by simply asserting that right of hearing is not to be granted in contractual matters. Two show-cause notices have been given to the petitioner and that was sufficient enough to comply the principles of natural justice. But this specific assertion of non-granting of opportunity of personal hearing, though requested and non-supply of material which has been the foundation of action, appearing to be not dealt with in a cogent manner. (4) It is further emerging from the record that a specific grievance is raised that almost in similar issue, the other company, namely, Asiatic Company has been granted an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, when such kind of serious attributions are being made upon the petitioner, it was expected that principles of natural justice ought to have been observed before taking action. Resultantly, the impugned order on the face of it appears to be in conflict with violation of principles of natural justice. (5) Yet another circumstance which is visible from the record is that pursuant to the show-cause notice having been given, a detailed reply is submitted which is reflecting from Page-102 of the petition compilation, in which also a specific request was made to properly verify all the documents and requested to furnish all the details about communication including the letters and e-mails by which Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigal Ltd. denied the authenticity of any document submitted by the petitioner as alleged and, therefore, especially when the action is sought to be initiated after almost a period of one year, even personal representation was also requested which is very much reflected from second last paragraph and, therefore, when such kind of blacklisting like action is to be initiated which has got far reaching consequences, principle of 'fair in action' demands that every action of statutory authority must be in close conformity with not only principles of natural justice but, also on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in close conformity of principle of 'fair play in action' which the record indicates that the same is not being completely observed by the authority. (6) So far as the allegations are concerned, ofcourse which material is supplied and which is not, is the main allegation and, therefore, when the Court is inclined to direct the authority to examine in detail after granting adequate opportunity to represent the case, the merit of such issues has not been gone into by this Court, as prima facie it appears that serious allegations have been dealt with by the authority not in close conformity with principles of natural justice, as stated hereinabove and, therefore, this one ground of non-compliance is sufficient enough for this Court to set aside the impugned order and it would be open for the petitioner to approach the authority for seeking appropriate opportunity in this regard and request the authority to pass a fresh order. 8. Normally, in a contractual matter, the Court should desist from interfering in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction but, here is a case in which the case does not fall within the realm of disputed question of fact on the sole issue about non-compliance of principles of natural justice and, therefore, when facts are not emerging as disputed about non-granting of opportunity of hearing, though demanded and non-supply of material, though demanded under Right to Information Act as well, this Court is of the opinion that no further issues are required to be gone into and the authorities are required to be directed to grant a fresh opportunity of hearing especially when the petitioner is ousted by attributing serious allegations. 9. While coming to this conclusion, the Court has also examined the decisions which have been cited by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and some of the decisions which are relevant to the issue are dealt with hereinafter. 10. The first decision which has been pressed into service by Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.6772 of 2013, decided on 11.9.2013 and the relevant extract contained therein is in Para.12 which deserves consideration on the present issue on hand and hence, quoted hereinafter : "12. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.6772 of 2013, decided on 11.9.2013 and the relevant extract contained therein is in Para.12 which deserves consideration on the present issue on hand and hence, quoted hereinafter : "12. So far as the first point is concerned, it needs to be dealt with short shrift for the reason that the Courts below have not thought it relevant for discussion, having, in their wisdom, considered it sufficient to non-suit the Appellant-company for its failure on the second count. It has, however, been explained by Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-company that at the material time there was no blacklisting or delisting of the Appellant-company and that in those circumstances it was not relevant to make any disclosure in this regard. The very fact that the Tendering Authority, in terms of its communication dated 22nd July 2013 had not adverted to this ground at all, lends credence to the contention that a valid argument had been proffered had this ground been raised. Regardless of the weight, pithiness or sufficiency of the explanation given by the Appellant-company in this regard, this issue in its entirety has become irrelevant for our cogitation for the reason that it does not feature as a reason for the impugned rejection. This ground should have been articulated at the very inception itself, and now it is not forensically fair or permissible for the Authority or any of the Respondents to adopt this ground for the first time in this second salvo of litigation by way of a side wind. The impugned Judgment is indubitably a cryptic one and does not contain the reasons on which the decision is predicated. Since reasons are not contained in the impugned Judgment itself, it must be set aside on the short ground that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in its earlier decision. The following observations found in the celebrated decision in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) AIR SC 851 are relevant to this question: "8. The following observations found in the celebrated decision in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) AIR SC 851 are relevant to this question: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji, (1952) AIR SC 16 (at p.18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow order." 11. Yet another decision which is pressed into service is a decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s. Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief Gen. Manager, WT Proj. BSNL and Others reported in, (2014) AIR SC 9 which deals with an issue of blacklisting of a contractor and in the context of examining such issue, the Apex Court has observed like this which since material deserves to be quoted hereinafter : "17. That apart the power to blacklist a contractor whether the contract be for supply of material or equipment or for the execution of any other work whatsoever is in our opinion inherent in the party allotting the contract. There is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor. That is because '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. Between two private parties the right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by any constraints whatsoever. That is because '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. Between two private parties the right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by any constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of private parties. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential pre-condition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence is similarly examinable by a writ Court. The legal position on the subject is settled by a long line of decisions rendered by this Court starting with Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Anr., (1975) 1 SCC 70 where this Court declared that blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains and that the Authority passing any such order was required to give a fair hearing before passing an order blacklisting a certain entity. This Court observed: "20. 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." 18. Subsequent decisions of this Court in M/s. Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Anr. 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." 18. Subsequent decisions of this Court in M/s. Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Anr. reported in, (1994) AIR SC 1277; Patel Engineering Ltd. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257 ; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 548 ; Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer, (PWD) Ernakulam and Others, (1978) 3 SCC 36 among others have followed the ratio of that decision and applied the principle of audi alteram partem to the process that may eventually culminate in the blacklisting of a contractor." 12. Yet another decision which has been pressed into service is in case of M/s. Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Another, (1994) AIR SC 1277 and relevant extracts contained in Para.8 and 9 have also been considered by this Court but, not reproduced. 13. The Apex Court while dealing with an issue related to blacklisting, has observed in a decision in case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and Others reported in, (1989) AIR SC 620 and distinguished the right of being heard and right of making effective representation and by observing in Para.4, the Apex Court has set aside the action of the authority of blacklisting of the appellant. Since Para.4 has got some impact on the present issue, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereinafter: "4. Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. In so far as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the order in so far as it directs blacklisting of the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law. In the premises, that portion of the order directing that the appellant be placed in the blacklist in respect of future contracts under the Collector is set aside. So far as the cancellation of the bid of the appellant is concerned, that is not affected. This order will, however, not prevent the State Government or the appropriate authorities from taking any future steps for blacklisting the appellant if the Government is entitled to do so in accordance with law, i.e. giving the appellant due notice and an opportunity of making representation. After hearing the appellant, the State Government will be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with law indicating the reasons therefor. We, however, make it quite clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. The appeal is thus disposed of." 14. Yet another decision which has been relied upon by learned Senior Advocate is the decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in SCA No.4263 of 2015, decided on 8.5.2015, in which the Division Bench has considered the entire issue with respect to grant of opportunity of hearing and the said order was also related to and arising out of contractual. Relevant extract contained in Para.27 and 28 are having bearing on the present issue, the Court deems it proper to quote hereinafter: "27. 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. 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. 28. 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." 15. Further, another decision which has been pressed into service is a decision of this Court rendered in SCA No.1329 of 2014, decided on 1.7.2014 and in contractual matter itself, the Division Bench has observed that at least, minimum opportunity of hearing to be given to a contractor if not awarded the work for future under the guise of impugned action of blacklisting and, therefore, the concept of grant of opportunity of hearing even in the contractual matters is a principle vogue which ought to have been observed by the respondent authority. 16. It is also a settled law propounded by catena of decisions that whenever any action is entailing civil consequences, a bare minimum opportunity is required to be given to the person affected even if Rules are silent and further, before taking any action the authority is expected to supply the material which is to be based upon for taking action, as non-supply of same is also depriving the person from making effective representation. As a result of this, the aforesaid discussion is leading this Court to conclude that the action initiated is in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, deserves to be set aside. 17. Now, as against this, Mr. As a result of this, the aforesaid discussion is leading this Court to conclude that the action initiated is in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, deserves to be set aside. 17. Now, as against this, Mr. D.R. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, has relied upon some of the decisions delivered by the Apex Court and made an attempt to persuade the Court to jump to a conclusion that whenever fraud is practiced or misrepresentation is made, this concept of natural justice should not be automatically applied and for that purpose, the decisions which are reported and cited hereinabove, the Court has taken into consideration for arriving at an ultimate conclusion. 18. While going through such decisions, the Court has found that the factual data of the said relevant cases are substantially different and it is settled position of law that whenever there is a slight change or additional fact, it would make a world of difference in applying the principle of precedent. Hence, keeping this proposition of law in mind and when the Court has taken into consideration one of the decisions reported in 2003 LawSuit 987, it is found that the same is related to a decision delivered in first appeal where the fraud and misrepresentation of material fact was alleged and after full-fledged trial, in detail the litigation went on and in that context, the Apex Court has propounded and, therefore, the facts are not similar to that what has been prevailing in this proceedings. 19. Further, another decision which has been relied upon is a decision reported in 2007 LawSuit (SC) 1249 and this proposition, of-course, is not at all in dispute but, the observations made therein are not possible to be applied with straitjacket formula. No doubt, it is a salutary principle that principle of natural justice is not to be applied as a straitjacket formula but, when the action entails civil consequences and when serious allegations are levelled on the basis of material which is the foundation, if no opportunity in proper terms is given then, certainly the action can be said to be violative of principles of natural justice. There are cases in which the Courts have refrained from setting aside the order simply on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. There are cases in which the Courts have refrained from setting aside the order simply on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But here is a case in which undisputedly, it is emerging a clear violation of the settled principle and, therefore, the issue is not debatable. As a result of this, the Court is unable to apply the decisions relied upon by learned advocate appearing for the respondents in mechanical manner and in a straitjacket formula and, therefore, the action abruptly is required to be set aside with a further consequential direction to allow the case on this ground alone. However, the Court is of the view that simply by quashing and setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner is not to be absolved from responsibility of explaining such serious allegations, more particularly when the petitioner is dealing with the statutory authority which is engaged in the activity of public importance, the Court thinks it proper to issue consequential direction, as well. Hence, the following directions, in considered opinion of this Court, would meet the ends of justice: (1) The impugned circular/order dated 3.4.2018 is quashed and set aside hereby and as a consequence thereof, the respondent authorities are directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after supplying the details which are demanded by the petitioner and shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after examining in details. (2) Since the impugned action is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case on other issues. However, it will be open for the petitioner to explain before the authority in detail about such contentions and in turn, the authorities, without being influenced by the earlier order, shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law on its own merits. (3) It is expected that these serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner, close scrutiny of the material deserves to be undertaken by the authority looking to the work which is of public importance and it is also expected that the authority shall take appropriate decision at the earliest. 20. With above observations and directions, present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.