ORDER : In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the proceedings Ref. No.VSP/2021/WCD/536, dated 09.08.2021 issued by the Chief General Manager, Works Contracts Department, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam-2nd respondent herein. By way of the said proceedings, 2nd respondent herein, by invoking the provisions of Clause No.3 (5) of the Integrity Pact, debarred the 1st petitioner for a period of three years with effect from 05.08.2021 from participation in future tenders. 2. According to the petitioners, 1st petitioner is a partnership firm and 2nd petitioner is its partner, and 1st petitioner herein is a service provider for maintenance of lifts. In the year 2010, the respondent organization issued a Tender Notification, inviting tenders for maintenance of lifts for a period of three years. 1st petitioner herein emerged as the successful bidder in the tender process and continued as service provider till the year 2017. By way of order dated 03.08.2017, 1st petitioner herein was debarred from participating in the tenders for a period of three years, and the said period, according to the petitioners, came to end on 04.08.2020. 2nd petitioner herein is the partner of 1st petitioner firm, as mentioned supra, and 1st petitioner has another sister concern viz. BECO Lifts Private Limited, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, for which the deponent of the writ affidavit in the present Writ Petition is the Managing Director. In the month of November, 2020, 2nd respondent organization invited tenders. According to the petitioners, though the three years’ period debarring 1st petitioner came to end in the month of August, 2020, 2nd respondent authorities did not open the petitioners’ ID, and only on 21.03.2021, the same was opened. The tenders issued in the month of November, 2020 came to be cancelled. Subsequently, 2nd respondent herein issued a Tender Notice on 02.03.2021 and the last date prescribed in the Tender Notification for submission of tenders was 23.03.2021. 3. According to the petitioners, since the deponent of the writ affidavit was unwell, he entrusted the job of uploading the tenders in response to the Tender Notification dated 02.03.2021, to a private agency. Subsequently, 2nd respondent herein issued a Tender Notice on 02.03.2021 and the last date prescribed in the Tender Notification for submission of tenders was 23.03.2021. 3. According to the petitioners, since the deponent of the writ affidavit was unwell, he entrusted the job of uploading the tenders in response to the Tender Notification dated 02.03.2021, to a private agency. It is the further case of the petitioners herein that the petitioners herein handed over the tender papers of 1st petitioner and also its sister concern, to the said private agency, unfortunately, on 22.03.2021, the said private agency uploaded tender papers of 1st petitioner and also uploaded the papers on behalf of the sister concern of 1st petitioner herein on 23.3.2021. Deponent of the writ affidavit pleaded lack of knowledge of such process adopted by the said private agency due to his ill-health. In support of his ill-health, medical prescriptions issued by the medical practitioner are filed along with the present Writ Petition as material papers. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that immediately, on coming to know about the said discrepancy which arose due to irregularity committed by the private agency, on 09.04.2021, the sister concern had withdrawn the tender on its own and also intimated about the withdrawal vide letter dated 20.05.2021. Tenders were opened on 24.03.2021 and tender of 1st petitioner came to be rejected. Thereafter, the matter landed before the Independent External Monitor (IEM) at the instance of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, and the IEM submitted its report on 27.05.2021. 5. Subsequently, 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice bearing Ref. No. VSP/2021/WCD/365, dated 15.06.2021, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioners, for violating the terms and conditions of the Integrity Pact, including debarring it from entering into future tenders for a minimum period of six months to a maximum period of three years. Responding to the said show cause notice, petitioners submitted an explanation on 26.06.2021, narrating all the aspects now stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Thereafter, 2nd respondent, by way of the questioned order dated 19.08.2021, debarred 1st petitioner for a period of three years with effect from 05.08.2021 from participating in the future tenders, by invoking the provisions of Clause 3 (5) of the Integrity Pact. Thereafter, 2nd respondent, by way of the questioned order dated 19.08.2021, debarred 1st petitioner for a period of three years with effect from 05.08.2021 from participating in the future tenders, by invoking the provisions of Clause 3 (5) of the Integrity Pact. In the present Writ Petition, petitioners herein are challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order. 6. Responding to the notice issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by 2nd respondent, resisting the Writ Petition and denying various allegations and averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 7. Heard Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the action on the part of 2nd respondent in not releasing the user ID of the 1st petitioner till 21.03.2021, despite expiry of three years’ period as long back as on 03.08.2020, is the root cause for the present situation, as such, the petitioners herein cannot be penalized for the same. It is further submitted that in view of the withdrawal of the tender by the sister concern of 1st petitioner on 09.04.2021 i.e. immediately after the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, came to know of the discrepancy which cropped up because of filing of two tender papers by the private agency, the impugned action is unwarranted. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that 2nd respondent authorities totally ignored the explanation submitted by the petitioners, so also, the report of the IEM dated 27.05.2021. 9. On the other hand, emphatically resisting the very maintainability of the Writ Petition, it is submitted by Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent organization, that since the petitioners herein failed to adhere to the Integrity Pact and the Undertakings given along with the tender documents, the petitioners herein are not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in the absence of any public element or patent perversity in the impugned action, the present Writ Petition cannot be entertained, as the subject matter pertains to a contractual dispute. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in the absence of any public element or patent perversity in the impugned action, the present Writ Petition cannot be entertained, as the subject matter pertains to a contractual dispute. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the report of the IEM is only recommendatory in nature as per section 8 (6) of the Integrity Pact and the same need not be scrupulously adhered to, by 1st respondent while taking a decision. 10. In order to consider the issues on hand, it would be appropriate and apposite to refer to the relevant clauses under the Integrity Pact, which is an integral part of the tender document. They are as follows: “Section 2 Commitments of the Bidder(s)/Contractor(s) (1) The Bidder/Contractor commits to take all measures necessary to prevent corruption and commits to observe the following principles during his participation in the tender process/during the contract execution (in case of Bidder to whom the contract has been awarded). (a) 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 other 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 or to vitiate the Principal's tender process or contract execution. (b) 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 or to vitiate the Principal's tender process or execution of the contract. (c) The Bidder/Contractor will not commit any offence under the PC Act/ Applicable law like paying any bribes or giving illegal benefit to anyone including employees of RINI, to gain undue advantage in dealing with RINL or for any other reason etc. (c) The Bidder/Contractor will not commit any offence under the PC Act/ Applicable law like paying any bribes or giving illegal benefit to anyone including employees of RINI, to gain undue advantage in dealing with RINL or for any other reason etc. 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 hostess detail including information contained or transmitted electronically. (d) The Bidder/Contractor of foreign origin shall disclose the name and address of the Agent(s)/representative (s) in India, if any. Similarly the Bidder/Contractor of Indian Nationality shall furnish the name and address of the foreign supplier/contract agency, if any. Further details, as mentioned in the Guidelines on Indian Agents of Foreign "Suppliers/contract agencies", shall be disclosed by the bidder/Contractor wherever applicable. Further, as mentioned in the Guidelines, all the payments made to the Indian agent(s)/representative(s) have to be in Indian Rupees only. Copy of the Guidelines on Indian Agents of Foreign "Suppliers/contract agencies" is enclosed. (e) The Bidder/Contractor will, when presenting his bid, disclose any and all payments he has made or committed to or intends to make to agents, brokers or any other intermediaries in connection with the award of the contract. (2) The Bidder/Contractor will not instigate third persons to commit offences outlined above or be an accessory to such offences. Section 3-Disqualification from tender process and exclusion from future contracts: (1) transgression is considered to have occurred, if the principal after due consideration of the available evidence, concludes that a reasonable doubt is possible. (2) If the Bidder/Contractor, before award of contract or after award of contract has committed a transgression through a violation of Section 2 above or in any other form such as to put his reliability or credibility in question, the Principal is entitled to disqualify the Bidder from the tender process or to terminate the contract, if already awarded for that reason, without prejudice to other remedies available to the Principal under the relevant GCC of the tender/contract. (3) If the bidder/Contractor has committed a transgression through a violation of any of the terms under Section-2 above or in any other form such as to put his reliability or credibility into question, the Principal is entitled also to exclude the bidder/Contractor from future tenders/Contract award processes. The imposition and duration of the exclusion will be determined by the principal keeping in view 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/Contractor and the amount of the damage. (4) If it is observed after payment of final bill but before the expiry of validity of Integrity Pact that the contractor has committed a transgression through a violation of any of the terms under Section 2 above during the execution of contract, the Principal is entitled to exclude the Contractor from future tenders/Contract award processes. (5) The exclusion will be imposed for a minimum period of six (6) months and a maximum period of three (3) years. (6) If the bidder/Contractor can prove that he has restored/recouped the damage to the principal caused by him and has installed a suitable corruption prevention system, the Principal may revoke the exclusion before the expiry of the period of such exclusion.” 11. Section 8 deals with Independent External Monitors. Admittedly, these agencies have been created on the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission to have the optimum transparency while dealing with the contractual matters. It is absolutely not in controversy that IEM constituted by 2nd respondent herein, submitted its report on 27.05.2021, recording a finding that the petitioners herein have transgressed the above mentioned provisions of the Integrity Pact and also came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein are to be excluded from the present and future tenders/contract awarding process. It is also not in controversy that pursuant to the said report submitted by IEM, 2nd respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 15.06.2021, calling upon the petitioners herein as to why action should not be taken for violating the above-referred clauses in the Integrity Pact. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein also submitted a reply on 26.06.2021. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners herein also submitted a reply on 26.06.2021. Obviously, taking into consideration the report of the IEM dated 27.05.2021, where the said agency found fault with the petitioners and recommended for action, 2nd respondent herein passed the impugned order, debarring the 1st petitioner herein from participation in future tenders for a period of three years. 12. It is a settled and well established principle of law that in contractual matters, unless there exists public element, patent perversity or mala fides, invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible. At the same time, it is required to be noted that having referred the issue to IEM and having received the report from the said external agency, where the said agency recommended for minimum penalty, and having proposed minimum penalty of six months in the show cause notice, this Court does not find any justification on the part of 2nd respondent herein in debarring 1st petitioner for a period of three years from participation in future tenders. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, IEM, an independent agency, has been created for the purpose of looking into the disputes arising out of tender process and to make recommendations, as such, it cannot be said that the report of the IEM can be totally ignored by the authorities. If the employer comes to the conclusion that the recommendation of the IEM need not be adhered to, the employer is required to record reasons. Then only the object sought to be achieved by constituting the IEM would be fulfilled. Otherwise, the entire exercise would become a futile exercise. In the instant case, 2nd respondent erred to the extent of non-consideration of the report of the IEM dated 27.05.2021 wherein the agency recommended for a lesser penalty. However, in the absence of any patent perversity, public element or attribution of any mala fides against the respondent-authorities, to the extent of taking action against the petitioners herein, this Court does not find any valid reason to disturb the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the proceedings Ref. However, in the absence of any patent perversity, public element or attribution of any mala fides against the respondent-authorities, to the extent of taking action against the petitioners herein, this Court does not find any valid reason to disturb the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the proceedings Ref. No.VSP/2021/WCD/536, dated 09.08.2021 issued by the Chief General Manager, Works Contracts Department, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam-2nd respondent herein, to the extent of imposing punishment of debarring petitioners for a period of three years with effect from 05.08.2021 from participation in future tenders and the period of penalty is reduced to six months. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.