JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, Dr. Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 02.09.2019, 04.09.2019 and 06.09.2019. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given any notice much less a show cause notice prior to passing of orders which have resulted in adverse civil consequences. 4. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order debarring the petitioner from entering into any agreement or contract for a period of three years, amounts to blacklisting and in view of this, he submits that no order of blacklisting could have been passed without giving prior notice or show cause to the petitioner in respect of such a proposed action. He further argued that forfeiture of the security amount has also been without due consideration of his reply and is therefore, not to be sustained in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the argument has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ - C No. 41505 of 2015 decided on 20.02.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paras 18, 19 & 20 of the said judgment. 5. We made a pointed query from learned counsel for the respondents regarding the above factual and legal position. 6. In reply, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is that the petitioner was given a notice on 20.08.2019 which was to the effect that the explanation was required from the petitioner regarding anomalies committed and on being not satisfied or in case if the notice not duly replied to, the petitioner would be held guilty and the appropriate orders will be passed for blacklisting of the petitioner. Needless to say, as it is also argued, that forfeiture of the security amount was liable to take effect automatically in view of the terms and conditions of agreement reached between the parties. 7. Needless to say, as it is also argued, that forfeiture of the security amount was liable to take effect automatically in view of the terms and conditions of agreement reached between the parties. 7. However, from the orders impugned in this petition, we do not find that the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner dated 26.08.2019 finds any reference. The settled legal position is that even in an an administrative decision making process, the justice and fair play demands that not only notice be given to the parties aggrieved, but reply submitted by the parties should be duly considered. There has to be a due application of mind to the reply and explanation submitted by the party to the show cause notice. 8. In the light of terms and agreement as have reached between the parties which provide for forfeiture of security and blacklisting we take notice dated 20.02.2018 to be a valid notice in the form of show cause of the proposed action. 9. In the case of M/s. Vindhyawasini T. Transport v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ - C No. 14505 of 2015, a Division Bench, of which one of us (Ajit Kumar, J.) was member, has quoted para 21 of the judgment of Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 , which reads as under: "21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of Show Cause Notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action." 10. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action." 10. However, we find from the recitals made in the order that the competent authority has proceeded to pass an order holding the petitioner simply guilty, but does not discuss the reply which the petitioner had submitted regarding the charges that have come to be levelled in the show cause notice. What we further find that even the notice dated 02.08.2019 does not find reference in the order. 11. Recently in the case of M/s. Continental Indial Private Limited v. State of U.P. & 3 Others, Writ - C No. 26917 of 2019, we, while considering the aspect of non consideration of reply, have held thus: "9. It is a settled legal position of law that when show cause notice is issued and the authority is dealing with the matter to decide an issue then in such an administrative decision making process an authority is required not only to consider the reply point-wise raised before it but to deal with the same and record reasons for rejecting the same, if it intends to reject after due evaluation of the same. 10. In the impugned order all that has been stated is that the assessment of cess has taken place and, therefore, the liability was of the petitioner to pay and in the absence of such payment being made, the amount is required to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 11. This is no evaluation of reply nor, the order can be called as reasoned one. Fairness in action means fairness in approach to the ultimate result. A conclusion drawn if is questioned on the ground that an authority that was seized with the defense version failed to refer the same or failed to apply its mind, the natural corollary is, such an action is vitiated for arbitrariness in approach to the issue. Whatever is arbitrary is opposed to natural law, a concept of justice that entails impartial dealing. In other words fairness demands impartial approach to an issue that needed adjudication, may be in a summary manner. Whatever is arbitrary is opposed to natural law, a concept of justice that entails impartial dealing. In other words fairness demands impartial approach to an issue that needed adjudication, may be in a summary manner. Every administrative order ultimately has to pass the testing anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India not only requires compliance of principles of natural justice but due application of mind also and complete fairness in procedure and fairness in procedure means not only issuance of notice for the cause for which the proceedings is drawn to the affected but also due consideration of the reply submitted to the show cause notice and evaluation of the same in correct perspective. In other words there has to be objective consideration of the reply in so far as issues are concerned in order to record the complete satisfaction not only to make the order reasoned one but legally enforceable on the norms of principles of just and fair play. We find all these aspects quite lacking in the order impugned and again being confronted with the said legal position, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board says that the matter can be revisited by the competent authority." 12. In view of the above exposition of law and the attending facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we are of the opinion that unless the reply is duly considered it cannot be said that there was due application of mind by the authority concerned and therefore, in our considered opinion, the matter requires to be revisited by the authority. 13. In view of the above, the orders impugned dated 02.09.2019, 04.09.2019 and 06.09.2019 are hereby quashed. 14. The respondents are directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and pass order afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is allowed.