ORDER : J.B.PARDIWALA, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant - a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Roads and Building Department Government of Gujarat (Annexure P-3) banning the petitioner company for a period of 03 years to be violative of principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law, and consequently quash and set aside the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 passed by the officer on Special Duty, Roads and Building Department, Government of Gujarat (Annexure P-3); (b) To pass an ex-parte ad interim order staying the operation of Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Roads and Building Department, Government of Gujarat – respondent no.1 banning the petitioner company for a period of 03 years pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition; (c) To pass any other order or orders in favour of the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under: 4.1 The writ applicant is engaged in the business of civil and structural engineering consultancy. The Nadiad Division of the Road and Buildings Department, Government of Gujarat invited consultancy bids in May, 2018 for the appointment of technical consultant for the Consultancy services for preparation of a detailed project report for constructing major bridges across the three rivers passing through the Kheda District of the State of Gujarat. 4.2 In the aforesaid context, the dispute cropped up between the writ applicant and the respondents. Ultimately, the same led to an order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Roads and Buildings Department, Gandhinagar. The same reads thus; “Government of Gujarat Roads and Building Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, Date. 4.2 In the aforesaid context, the dispute cropped up between the writ applicant and the respondents. Ultimately, the same led to an order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Roads and Buildings Department, Gandhinagar. The same reads thus; “Government of Gujarat Roads and Building Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, Date. 27-11-2020 Subject: Banning business to the consultant The Delf consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM It has been brought to the notice of Government that the consultant The Delf consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad to whom below mentioned work was entrusted by the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Kheda has prepared in Infructuous DPR resulting in obnormal extra and excess quantity in many items in DPR prepared by the firm. NAME OF CONSULTANCY SERVICE WORK Consultancy Services for preparation of the detailed project report for constructing major bridges across three river in Kheda district 2. After careful scrutiny and consideration of the whole case, Government is constrained to order that the consultant The Delf consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad should be banned and kept in abeyance for 3 (three year from assigning the business with Roads and Buildings Department Government of Gujarat from the date of issue of this order. (A.N.Mistry) Officer on Special Duty (S.P.) Roads and Buildings Department Gandhinagar” 4.3 The aforesaid order has been impugned in the present writ application substantially on the ground that without issue of any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant, the State could not have passed such an order as it entails civil/evil consequences. In other words, the impugned order is assailed on the ground that the same is stigmatic in nature and bars the writ applicant from participating in any government tender for a period of three years. 5. We have heard Mr. Tushar Himani, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Maulik Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State. 6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court to which one of us (Vaibhavi Nanavati J) was a party passed the following order dated 22.04.2021; “1. Tushar Himani, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Maulik Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State. 6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court to which one of us (Vaibhavi Nanavati J) was a party passed the following order dated 22.04.2021; “1. Challenge is to the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Roads and Building Department, Gandhinagar, which orders the petitioner company to be banned and kept in abeyance for the period of three years from being assigned the business with the Roads and Building Department, Government of Gujarat. 2. This has been challenged essentially on the ground of passing of order of blacklisting without issuance of show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company. 3. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the petitioner. 4. It has been emphatically urged that the order of blacklisting was passed without issuance of show cause notice on availing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is an apparent breach of principles of natural justice. He has also relied on various decisions which emphasize that the order of blacklisting amounts to “civil death”. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vs. (2020 SCC online page 934) where the Apex Court has held that the principles of civilized jurisprudence is that the person against whom any action is taken or whose right is affected must be given the reasonable opportunity by serving the notice to avail opportunity to defend. 5. Notice and notice as to interim relief returnable on 23.4.2021. 5.1 Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Service of notice through electronic mode over and above the regular mode is permitted. Direct service through e-mode is permitted today.” 7. Thereafter, further order came to be passed dated 23.04.2021, the same reads as under; “1. 5.1 Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Service of notice through electronic mode over and above the regular mode is permitted. Direct service through e-mode is permitted today.” 7. Thereafter, further order came to be passed dated 23.04.2021, the same reads as under; “1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: - “(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Roads and Building Department Government of Gujarat (Annexure P-3) banning the petitioner company for a period of 03 years to be violative of principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law, and consequently quash and set aside the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 passed by the officer on Special Duty, Roads and Building Department, Government of Gujarat (Annexure P-3); (b) To pass an ex-parte ad interim order staying the operation of Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Roads and Building Department, Government of Gujarat – respondent no.1 banning the petitioner company for a period of 03 years pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition; (c) To pass any other order or orders in favour of the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. At the time of issuance of notice on 22.04.2021, this Court passed the following order :- “1. Challenge is to the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Roads and Building Department, Gandhinagar, which orders the petitioner company to be banned and kept in abeyance for the period of three years from being assigned the business with the Roads and Building Department, Government of Gujarat. 2. This has been challenged essentially on the ground of passing of order of blacklisting without issuance of show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company. 3. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the petitioner. 4. It has been emphatically urged that the order of blacklisting was passed without issuance of show cause notice on availing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is an apparent breach of principles of natural justice. 3. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the petitioner. 4. It has been emphatically urged that the order of blacklisting was passed without issuance of show cause notice on availing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is an apparent breach of principles of natural justice. He has also relied on various decisions which emphasize that the order of blacklisting amounts to “civil death”. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vs. (2020 SCC online page 934) where the Apex Court has held that the principles of civilized jurisprudence is that the person against whom any action is taken or whose right is affected must be given the reasonable opportunity by serving the notice to avail opportunity to defend. 5. Notice and notice as to interim relief returnable on 23.4.2021. 5.1 Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Service of notice through electronic mode over and above the regular mode is permitted. Direct service through e-mode is permitted today.” 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vyas, on taking instruction from the respondent no.1, has admitted fairly that there had been no show cause notice issued to the petitioner at any juncture. According to her, the petitioner on his own, has made representations to various authorities who are considering the requests of the petitioner. She also further has urged that the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 issued by the officer concerns of the Roads and Building Department and not any other department of the Government. Therefore, the banning or keeping in abeyance of the petitioner company will not be in relation to other than the Roads and Building Department. 4. We have also heard learned senior advocate Mr.Hemani appearing with learned advocate Mr.Nanavati for the petitioner after an oral response of the learned AGP who have emphatically urged on gross violation of principles of natural justice without even fulfillment of basic requirement of law. According to the learned Counsels, depriving the petitioner of their entitlement of carrying on their business, on pre judging the issue must be strictly viewed. It is further urged that a couple of tender bids would be over if the order impugned is not interfered with. 5. According to the learned Counsels, depriving the petitioner of their entitlement of carrying on their business, on pre judging the issue must be strictly viewed. It is further urged that a couple of tender bids would be over if the order impugned is not interfered with. 5. On hearing both the sides and noticing a complete absence of issuance of the show cause notice, at the stage of considering the request of interim relief, apt would be to refer to some of the findings and observations of the Apex Court in case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Food Corporation of India and Another [ 2021 (2) SCC 551 ]:- “13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Lucknow and Anr., has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the state or a state corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularized and unambiguous show cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatization that accrues to the person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts. This privilege arises because it is the State who is the counter-party in government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting takes away this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person’s reputation and brings the person’s character into question. Blacklisting also has long-lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the blacklisted person. 15. In the present case as well, the appellant has submitted that serious prejudice has been caused to it due to the Corporation’s order of blacklisting as several other government corporations have now terminated their contracts with the appellant and/or prevented the appellant from participating in future tenders even though the impugned blacklisting order was, in fact, limited to the Corporation’s Madhya Pradesh regional office. This domino effect, which can effectively lead to the civil death of a person, shows that the consequences of blacklisting travel far beyond the dealings of the blacklisted person with one particular government corporation and in view thereof, this Court has consistently prescribed strict adherence to principles of natural justice whenever an entity is sought to be blacklisted. 16. The severity of the effects of blacklisting and the resultant need for strict observance of the principles of natural justice before passing an order of blacklisting were highlighted by this Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal in the following terms: “12. … The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. XXX XXX XXX 15. … The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. XXX XXX XXX 15. … The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions. The black lists are instruments of coercion. XXX XXX XXX 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.” 17. Similarly, this Court in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, struck down an order of blacklisting for future contracts on the ground of nonobservance of the principles of natural justice. The relevant extract of the judgment in that case is as follows: “4. … [I]t is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realized 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.” 18. This Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. has described blacklisting as being equivalent to the civil death of a person because blacklisting is stigmatic in nature and debars a person from participating in government tenders thereby precluding him from the award of government contracts. It has been held thus: “16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. It has been held thus: “16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts.” 19. In light of the above decisions, it is clear that a prior show cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative decision-making and particularly so in decisions pertaining to blacklisting which entail grave consequences for the entity being blacklisted. In these cases, furnishing of a valid show cause notice is critical and a failure to do so would be fatal to any order of blacklisting pursuant thereto. 24. A plain reading of the notice makes it clear that the action of blacklisting was neither expressly proposed nor could it have been inferred from the language employed by the Corporation in its show cause notice. After listing 12 clauses of the “Instruction to Bidders”, which were part of the Corporation’s Bid Document dated 25.11.2016, the notice merely contains a vague statement that in light of the alleged leakage of question papers by the appellant, an appropriate decision will be taken by the Corporation. In fact, Clause 10 of the same Instruction to Bidders section of the Bid Document, which the Corporation has argued to be the source of its power to blacklist the appellant, is not even mentioned in the show cause notice. While the notice clarified that the 12 clauses specified in the notice were only indicative and not exhaustive, there was nothing in the notice which could have given the appellant the impression that the action of blacklisting was being proposed. While the notice clarified that the 12 clauses specified in the notice were only indicative and not exhaustive, there was nothing in the notice which could have given the appellant the impression that the action of blacklisting was being proposed. This is especially true since the appellant was under the belief that the Corporation was not even empowered to take such an action against it and since the only clause which mentioned blacklisting was not referred to by the Corporation in its show cause notice. While the following paragraphs deal with whether or not the appellant’s said belief was well founded, there can be no question that it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation to clarify in the show cause notice that it intended to blacklist the appellant, so as to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the same. 25. The mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice. The Corporation’s notice is completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in the show cause notice to black list, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply for the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 does not fulfil the requirements of a valid show cause notice for blacklisting. In our view, the order of blacklisting the appellant clearly traversed beyond the bounds of the show cause notice which is impermissible in law. As a result, the consequent blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 cannot be sustained.” 6. We are of the prima facie opinion that the least that can be required of the Respondents is of issuance of show cause notice and affording the opportunity of hearing before blacklisting the petitioner. Even if this action is a preventive measure as stated orally by the learned AGP, while availing the opportunity to the respondent to file affidavit-in-reply within four weeks, by way of interim relief, the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 is stayed. Even if this action is a preventive measure as stated orally by the learned AGP, while availing the opportunity to the respondent to file affidavit-in-reply within four weeks, by way of interim relief, the Circular Memorandum dated 27.11.2020 is stayed. This, in no manner, will preclude the State to issue a show cause notice and initiate the proceedings, if it so deems appropriate, against the petitioner even while the present petition is pending, by following due procedure of law. 7. The petitioner has ensured to cooperate, if any such show cause notice is issued. 8. Let a copy of affidavit in reply be given to the Petitioner a week in advance and rejoinder affidavit, if needs to be filed, the same shall be done on or before the scheduled date. Matter to appear on 08.06.2021. Direct service is permitted.” 8. It is not in dispute as fairly conceded that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice to the writ applicant or without giving any opportunity of hearing. At this stage, we may look into the stance of the respondent as reflected from the averments made in paragraph 10 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.1. “10. It is humbly submitted that petitioner has raised contention of non-issuance of show cause notice before passing the impugned circular. It is submitted that the sole purpose of show opportunity to the person cause notice is to grant before passing order. However, in instant case, it is not the case that the petitioner was completely kept under dark. It is submitted that clarifications was sought vide letter dated 26.09.2019 which was replied on 09.10.2019. Consequently, order dated 21.01.2020 forfeiting the Security Deposit and recovery of the 50% of the consultancy fee payable to Petitioner Company was passed which remain unchallenged till date. Thereafter, petitioner again made their submissions vide letter dated 18.06.2020 and 07.11.2020.Thus, considering the series of events, petitioner has availed all opportunity by admitting few facts and made their submissions vide various communications. Therefore, before the impugned order is passed, the petitioner have availed their opportunity and mere technicality of issuance of show cause notice could not have prejudiced petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner again made their submissions vide letter dated 18.06.2020 and 07.11.2020.Thus, considering the series of events, petitioner has availed all opportunity by admitting few facts and made their submissions vide various communications. Therefore, before the impugned order is passed, the petitioner have availed their opportunity and mere technicality of issuance of show cause notice could not have prejudiced petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that, even after passing impugned order, the petitioner has never raised the objection of show cause notice or non grant of opportunity of hearing in their subsequent letters dated 3.12.2020, 7.12.2020 and 9.12.2020. Moreover, the petitioner has till date not challenged the order dated 21.01.2020. Thus, petitioner was well aware about the consequences and have already availed the opportunity before the authorities. Petitioner has raised technical objection of non-issuance of show cause notice at a very belated stage which deserves to be dismissed.” 9. Thus, the stance of the respondents is that there was undue delay at the end of writ applicant in completing the project in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The writ applicant was obliged to start the work from 17.01.2019 but in fact, it commenced from 17.07.2020. It took 18 months for the writ applicant to complete the work instead of 3 months as stipulated in the contract. According to the respondents, the project has suffered due to delay at the end of the writ applicant. 10. The aforesaid stance as reflected from the reply does not seem to be absolutely correct. It appears from the documents at page 48 of the paper book that the writ applicant was supposed to start with the project from 15.06.2018 and was obliged to complete it by September, 2018. 11. It is difficult for us to accept the aforesaid stance of the respondents that the writ applicant could not be said to have been prejudiced in any manner by not giving him an opportunity of hearing or by issue of any show cause notice prior to passing of the impugned order. The law in this regard has been very succinctly explained in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Another (Supra) referred to in the order passed by this Court dated 23.04.2021 referred to above. The law in this regard has been very succinctly explained in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Another (Supra) referred to in the order passed by this Court dated 23.04.2021 referred to above. The Supreme Court has observed that it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has further observed that with blacklisting/banned many civil and/or evil consequences would follow. In the words of the Supreme Court, blacklisting/banned could be described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklist. 12. This very Bench recently in the case of Pipara and Co LLP Versus Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Limited, the Special Civil Application No.7342 of 2021 had the occasion to explain the principles of natural justice. We quote the relevant paragraphs no.66 to 69 as under: “66. In the case on hand, we are at one with Mr. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant that the sudden removal has caused a lot of blemish to his client. We appreciate the bold and fair stance of Mr. Virk, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – C&AG. 67. Let us assume for the moment that Section 140 of the Act, 2013 has no application as Section 140 does not talk about removal of the Auditor by the C&AG and talks about removal of the Auditor by the company with the prior approval of the Central Government, even in such circumstances, the natural justice principle is implicit. It need not be expressly provided for in the statute. Where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard, then having regard to the nature of the statutory duty imposed the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. Whenever an action of a public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the affected person. [See Prakash vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 4 SCC 690 paras 13 and 14] 68. [See Prakash vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 4 SCC 690 paras 13 and 14] 68. If there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, the duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. The criteria for an adequate notice is that the Court's conscience must be satisfied that the concerned person had a fair chance to know the details of the case against him and of the action proposed to be taken against him. [See CCE vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd, (2007) 5 SCC 388 ]. 69. It goes without saying that any order or any decision which has civil consequences must be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing. There could be just one overriding reason to exclude the application of the principles of natural justice and that is in the case of national security. Such is not the stance of any of the respondents in the present case.” 13. In view of the aforesaid, we have reached to the conclusion that we should quash and set aside the impugned circular memorandum, Annexure P-3, page 15 of the paper book dated 27.11.2020 only on the ground that the same could be said to be in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order (circular/memorandum) dated 27.11.2020 Annexure – P-3 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is clarified that if the respondents intend to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh in future they may do so in accordance with law. 15. Rule made absolute. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of. 16. We clarify that we have confined our adjudication only on one count i.e. violation of the principles of natural justice. We have not expressed any opinion otherwise on the merits of the case.