JUDGMENT : By invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition has been instituted challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017 and an order dated 20.09.2017, both issued under the hand of the Mission Director, National Health Mission [NHM], Assam. By the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why there was delay from the end of the petitioner to supply the essential drugs pursuant to two Purchase Orders, dated 21.01.2017 and 23.03.2017 respectively, and as to why the petitioner should not be blacklisted for non-performance in supplying essential drugs in the State causing delay in the programme, ‘Free Drug Service’ Scheme of the Government of India. By the Order dated 20.09.2017, the petitioner has been disqualified to participate in any tender processes initiated by the NHM, Assam for a period of 5 [five] years from the date of the said Order stated to be passed in terms of Clause 17 of the Bid Document. 2. The office of the Mission Director, NHM, Assam initiated a National Competitive Bidding [NCB] process by publishing a Tender Notice for supply of drugs vide Tender No. NHM/PROC/RC-DRUGS/2268/2014-15/13559 dated 11.11.2014 [‘the Tender Notice’, for short]. By the Tender Notice dated 11.11.2014, sealed tenders in Two-Bid system [Technical Bid & Price Bid] were invited from manufacturers or their authorized distributors/dealers for finalization of rate contracts for supply of drugs to Government Health Institutions located in different districts of Assam. As per the Tender Notice, delivery of ordered items would be effected at District Drug Stores, located in 27 different districts of Assam. As per the Bid Document of the Tender Notice, a Pre-Bid Meeting was scheduled on 25.11.2014 and the last date of submission of tender was till 02-00 p.m., 08.12.2014. By a Corrigendum no. 1 dated 08.12.2014, the last date and time of submission of tenders were extended till 02-00 p.m., 16.12.2014. By the said Corrigendum, certain modifications/ amendments were carried out in the original Bid Document issued pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 11.11.2014. 2.1. Responding to the Tender Notice dated 11.11.2014 and the Corrigendum dated 08.12.2014, the petitioner, a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, submitted its tender. In due course, the petitioner was communicated by the respondent NHM that the petitioner had emerged as a successful bidder. 3. 2.1. Responding to the Tender Notice dated 11.11.2014 and the Corrigendum dated 08.12.2014, the petitioner, a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, submitted its tender. In due course, the petitioner was communicated by the respondent NHM that the petitioner had emerged as a successful bidder. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after the petitioner declared as the successful bidder, the respondent NHM started issuing purchase orders in favour of the petitioner and in terms of Clause 13 of the Bid Document, the petitioner was required to sign an agreement as per Annexure-XVI for each such order. Thereafter, the petitioner required to execute the purchase orders placed by the respondent NHM at various districts of the State of Assam within the stipulated time period. As per Clause 13 of the Bid Document, the successful bidder had to execute an agreement as per Annexure-XVI by following the formalities prescribed therein. 3.1. On 21.01.2017, a Purchase Order of even date was issued in favour of the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner was asked to supply the drugs as per the items and prices with details mentioned therein, in accordance with the terms and conditions stated therein. By Annexure-I, the respondent NHM stated the items, quantities and rates of the drugs to be supplied by the petitioner and by Annexure-II, the respondent NHM mentioned the destinations for delivery of the drugs. The total amount of the drugs to be supplied was Rs. 81,18,592.30 [exclusive of all taxes]. 3.2. On 23.03.2017, another Purchase Order of even date was issued in favour of the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner was asked to supply the drugs as per the detail items in accordance with the terms and conditions stated therein. By Annexure-I, the respondent NHM stated the items, quantities and rates of the drugs to be supplied by the petitioner and by Annexure-II, the respondent NHM mentioned the destinations for delivery of the drugs. The total amount of the drugs to be supplied was Rs. 60,11,350.70 [exclusive of all taxes]. 3.3. By Annexure-I, the respondent NHM stated the items, quantities and rates of the drugs to be supplied by the petitioner and by Annexure-II, the respondent NHM mentioned the destinations for delivery of the drugs. The total amount of the drugs to be supplied was Rs. 60,11,350.70 [exclusive of all taxes]. 3.3. Subsequent to placement of the afore-stated two Purchase Orders, dated 21.01.2017 and 23.03.2017, the impugned Show Cause Notice came to be issued on 21.07.2017 under the hand of the Executive Director, NHM, Assam asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why there was delay from the end of the petitioner to supply the drugs as per the two Purchase Orders [supra] and as to why action should not be taken to blacklist the petitioner due to non-performance on its part resulting in non-availability of essential drugs in the State of Assam and affecting the programme called ‘Free Drug Service’ launched by the Government of India. The petitioner responded to the said Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017, by submitting its reply dated 08.08.2017. Subsequent to submission of reply by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, the Mission Director, NHM, Assam by the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017 had disqualified the petitioner to participate in any tender process initiated by the NHM for a period of 5 [five] years from the date of the said Order by invoking Clause E : Penalty for Delayed Delivery in the Bid Document. By the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017, the respondent NHM on the basis of a proposal received from the petitioner on 25.09.2017, had allowed the petitioner to complete the supply of the drugs ordered by the two Purchase Orders within 10 [ten] working days, subject to execution of an agreement, deposit of performance security and NABL Test Reports, as one-time exception. 4. Heard Mr. D. Deka and Mr. A. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, National Health Mission [NHM], Assam. 5. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Clause 17 of the Bid Document, has submitted that the respondent NHM did not adhere to the procedure prescribed in the Bid Document before taking the drastic action of disqualifying the petitioner for a period of 5 [five] years. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, National Health Mission [NHM], Assam. 5. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Clause 17 of the Bid Document, has submitted that the respondent NHM did not adhere to the procedure prescribed in the Bid Document before taking the drastic action of disqualifying the petitioner for a period of 5 [five] years. After placement of the two Purchase Orders, the petitioner company had met with a major crisis in its manufacturing plant and due to such crisis, it had to halt its production resulting in non-supply of the drugs as ordered by the two Purchase Orders. It was in that situation, the petitioner by its communication dated 26.06.2017 and 24.07.2017 had requested the respondent NHM to grant extension to the petitioner to comply with the Purchase Orders. As per the two Purchase Orders, the supply of drugs was required to commence within 90 days and the supply was to be completed within 120 days from the date of issue of the Purchase Orders. In respect of the 1st Purchase Order dated 21.01.2017, 60 days period was to be counted from 22.03.2017 whereas for the 2nd Purchase Order dated 23.03.2017, the 60 days period was to be counted from 22.05.2017. In that context, the dates of completion of supply would have been on 22.05.2017 and 22.06.2017 respectively. 5.1. Sub-clause E of Clause 17 of the Bid Document had prescribed that in case of delay in delivery beyond the stipulated period mentioned in the Purchase Orders, there shall be reduction in price @ 0.5% of the value of delayed goods per week or part thereof, subject to a maximum of 10% of the total ordered value. It is only after the level of maximum price reduction is reached, the respondent NHM could have considered termination of the contract. According to Mr. Deka, it was only after imposition of penalty for delay of delivery to the extent of 10% of the total ordered value, the respondent NHM could have initiated action to disqualify the petitioner company, a successful bidder, in terms of subclause E of Clause 17 of the Bid Document. According to Mr. Deka, it was only after imposition of penalty for delay of delivery to the extent of 10% of the total ordered value, the respondent NHM could have initiated action to disqualify the petitioner company, a successful bidder, in terms of subclause E of Clause 17 of the Bid Document. The same conditions were also incorporated in the two Purchase Orders and thus, the action on the part of the respondent NHM in disqualifying the petitioner company for a period of 5 [five] years by the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017 is not sustainable in law. The respondent NHM even after disqualifying the petitioner company by the impugned Order, had allowed the petitioner company to supply the drugs in terms of the two-Purchase Orders and the petitioner company by executing two contract-agreements, both dated 26.09.2017, had supplied the drugs in terms of the two Purchase Orders. 6. Per contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, NHM has submitted that the action initiated against the petitioner company was in terms of Clause 17 and the terms and conditions set forth in the two Purchase Orders. It is his submission that against every purchase order for supply of drugs, the supplier had to execute a separate contract-agreement and had to submit separate performance guarantee. In the event of delay in delivery, it was open for the respondent NHM to impose penalty as per the provisions mentioned therein and after the maximum penalty of 10% of the total order value is reached, the respondent NHM had an option of terminating the contract. At the same time, in the event of non-performance of the contract provisions on the part of the successful bidder, it was open for the respondent NHM to initiate action to disqualify the bidder for the prescribed period along with the penalty clause. He has, thus, submitted that the initiation of the action by the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017 was in conformity with sub-clause E of Clause 17 of the Bid Document. 6.1. When the reply to the Show Cause Notice submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017 was passed. By referring to the reasons cited in the Show Cause Notice, Mr. 6.1. When the reply to the Show Cause Notice submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017 was passed. By referring to the reasons cited in the Show Cause Notice, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that the non-performance on the part of the petitioner due to non-supply of essential drugs which were meant to be distributed through different Government health facilities for patients undergoing treatments there and that too, free of cost, the respondent NHM had to face immense difficulties in delivering those essential drugs to the patients in time. As the action initiated to disqualify/blacklist the petitioner company was in conformity with the laws laid down and in the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice, the Bid Document and the Purchase Orders, no interference is called for. To buttress his submissions, he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi] and others, reported in [2014] 9 SCC 105. 7. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also considered the decision cited by the learned Standing Counsel, NHM, Assam. 8. The events leading to the issuance of the two Purchase Orders dated 21.01.2017 and 23.03.2017; the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017; and the Order dated 20.09.2017, have already been delineated above. 9. As sub-clause C and sub-clause E of Clause 17 of the Bid Document are of relevance, the contents of Clause 17 are extracted hereinbelow : 17. SUPPLY CONDITIONS A. Purchase Order Purchase order will be placed with the successful Bidder at the discretion of the Tender Inviting Authority. B. Specifications & Quality The items supplied by the successful Bidder shall be of the best quality and shall comply with the specifications, stipulations and conditions specified at Annexure-XIV. C. Delivery Period The supply should be started within 60 [sixty] days from the date of purchase order and should be completed within 90 days, unless otherwise specified in the order. D. Delivery Point/Destination The items shall be delivered at the District Drug Stores located in 27 districts of Assam. The destinations are indicated at Annexure-XIV. C. Delivery Period The supply should be started within 60 [sixty] days from the date of purchase order and should be completed within 90 days, unless otherwise specified in the order. D. Delivery Point/Destination The items shall be delivered at the District Drug Stores located in 27 districts of Assam. The destinations are indicated at Annexure-XIV. E. Penalty for Delayed Delivery [i] In case there is delay in delivery beyond the stipulated period as mentioned in the purchase order, there shall be reduction in price @ 0.5% of the value of delayed goods per week of delay or part thereof subject to a maximum of 10% of the total order value. [ii] Once the maximum price reduction is reached, termination of the contract may be considered. Non-performance of the contract provisions shall make the successful bidder liable to be disqualified to participate in any tender for the next 5 years, in addition to forfeiture of Security Deposit and other penal actions. 10. Sub-clause C of Clause 17 which speaks about the delivery period, mentioned that the supply should be started within 60 days from the purchase order and should be completed within 90 days, unless otherwise specified in the order. Clause 7 of the 1st Purchase Order dated 23.03.2017 was in similar terms with Clause 17[C] of the Bid Document. However, as per Clause 7 of the 2nd Purchase Order dated 21.01.2017, the supply should commence within 60 days and should be completed within 120 days from the date of issue of the Purchase Order. Thus, it was Clause 7 of the 2nd Purchase Order dated 21.01.2017 which was to prevail over Clause 17[C] of the Bid Document. 11. If the date of commencement of 60 days is to be counted from the respective Purchase Order then the date of commencement in respect of the 1st Purchase Order dated 21.01.2017, would have been 22.03.2017 and in respect of the 2nd Purchase Order dated 23.03.2017, would have been 22.05.2017. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company did not commence the supply of drugs at any time on or before 22.03.2017 and 22.05.2017 against the respective Purchase Orders. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company did not commence the supply of drugs at any time on or before 22.03.2017 and 22.05.2017 against the respective Purchase Orders. 12. The petitioner has annexed 2 [two] letters dated 26.06.2017 and 24.07.2017, annexed as Annexure-6 and Annexure-8 to the writ petition, to contend that by those two letters it had asked for extension of the period to supply the drugs in terms of the two Purchase Orders. On 08.08.2017, the petitioner had replied to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017 and therein it had also referred about the letters dated 26.06.2017 and 24.07.2017. Conspicuously, all the three letters, dated 26.06.2017, 24.07.2017 and 08.08.2017, were shown to have been received and acknowledged by the respondent NHM on a one particular date, that is, on 21.08.2017. There is no averment from the petitioner to the effect that the letter dated 26.06.2017 and 24.07.2017 were received and acknowledged by the respondent NHM on any date earlier to 21.08.2017. 13. Both the Purchase Orders contained one similar condition in the form of Clause 4 which is reproduced hereinunder :- 4. The Supplier shall have to enter into a ‘Deed of Agreement’ for execution of the order within 7 working days from date of the order and submit ‘Security Deposit’ @ 5% of the total order value in the form of ‘Bank Guarantee’ valid for a period of 12 months from the date of order in favour of ‘State Health Society, Assam’ within 7 [seven] days from the date of signing the ‘Deed of Agreement’. 14. It is not the case of the petitioner that it did not receive the two Purchase Orders dated 21.01.2017 and 23.03.2017 from the respondent NHM belatedly. The petitioner has nowhere stated that after receipt of the said two Purchase Orders, it had approached the respondent NHM to execute a Deed of Agreement within the stipulated period of 7 [seven] working days from the respective date of issuance of the two Purchase Orders or it submitted security deposit @ 5% of the total ordered value in the form of bank guarantees with validity period of 12 months from the date of the two Purchase Orders within 7 [seven] working days from the date of signing of the respective Deed of Agreement. The petitioner is found conspicuously silent on the said aspect. The petitioner is found conspicuously silent on the said aspect. Though the petitioner has mentioned that it met with a major crisis in the manufacturing plant of the petitioner company resulting in halt of production in its plant and cited the same as the sole reason for its inability to supply the drugs in terms of the two Purchase Orders, no other credible materials, except such assertion, have been placed on record in support of such assertion. 15. Reverting back to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017, it is found that the respondent NHM had informed the petitioner that the two Purchase Orders were for supplying essential drugs and the petitioner was found not supplying those essentials drugs ordered by the said two Purchase Orders in time. It was mentioned in the Show Cause Notice that due to such non-supply of drugs, the patients who were attending the different Government health facilities in the State of Assam, were not being provided with those essential drugs. The Show Cause Notice was specific on the fact that those essential drugs were required on an urgent basis. For example, Syp cetrizine & Tab Levo-cetrizine was required for anti-allergic treatment, Tab Fluconabole was required for anti-fungal treatment, Tab Atenolol was necessary for hypertension, Tab Ranitidine was essential for gastritis, Syp Domperidone was required as anti-vomiting medicine and Tab Calcium Carbonate was for supplement. The objects and purposes of the National Health Mission are to provide the patients undergoing treatments in Government health facilities, more particularly, to the economically backward strata of the society, at free of cost. Non-availability of those essential drugs for different ailments at the Government health facilities meant for distribution as free drugs, were likely to have adverse effects in extending treatments to the patients undergoing treatments in those Government health facilities. 16. In the reply dated 08.08.2017 to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017, the petitioner had admitted its inability to supply the drugs ordered by the two Purchase Orders and had requested the respondent NHM for extension of the time period by not deducting any penalty charge. In the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017, the respondent NHM had considered the aspect of delay on the part of the petitioner to supply the drugs pursuant to the two Purchase Orders for more than 8 [eight] months. In the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017, the respondent NHM had considered the aspect of delay on the part of the petitioner to supply the drugs pursuant to the two Purchase Orders for more than 8 [eight] months. It was mentioned therein that such failure had a consequential affect in extending the benefits to the patients attending and undergoing treatments in different Government health facilities in the State of Assam under the NHM ‘Free Drug Services’, a scheme of Government of India. Having considered the aspect of such delay, the respondent NHM stated to have taken the action of disqualifying the petitioner from participating in any tender processes under the NHM in terms of sub-clause E of Clause 17 of the Bid Document. The impugned Order further reflected that the petitioner was allowed to complete the supply of the ordered quantity of drugs against the two Purchase Orders within 10 [ten] working days without any further delay. Such concession was stated to have been made as a one-time exception by the respondent NHM. 17. Clause 12 of the Bid Document reads as follows : ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER A. Tender Evaluation Tenders will be evaluated with reference to technical and commercial parameters to determine the technically qualified bidders for all Groups. Price Bids of technically qualified bidders will be evaluated with reference to the quoted price [landed price] of each item to determine the L1 [Lowest] price. Conditional discounts shall not be taken into account for price compromise. B. Right to Reject Tender Tender Inviting Authority reserves the right to accept the tender or to reject the whole tender for the supply of all items or for any one or more of the items tendered at any point of time without assigning any reason. C. Tender Acceptance The acceptance of the tenders will be communicated to the successful bidders in writing. 18. The matter of debarment of a bidder from participating in any tender process for a stipulated period of time amounts to blacklisting and such order is stigmatic in nature. As such an order has adverse civil consequences, it is imperative that any order of disqualifying/blacklisting has to be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. The elementary principle of natural justice requires that a party affected by such kind of order of disqualification/blacklisting should be afforded opportunity of making representation against such an action proposed. As such an order has adverse civil consequences, it is imperative that any order of disqualifying/blacklisting has to be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. The elementary principle of natural justice requires that a party affected by such kind of order of disqualification/blacklisting should be afforded opportunity of making representation against such an action proposed. It has been observed in Gorkha Security Services [supra] that in order to fulfill the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice should meet the twin requirements viz. [i] the material/grounds to be stated which according to the Department necessitates an action; and [ii] particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It has been observed that the fundamental purpose behind the serving of a show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. The other requirement is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. 19. When the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2017 qua the twin requirements are looked at, it can be seen that the Show Cause Notice appears to have satisfied the twin requirements. The Show Cause Notice indicated the reason as non-commencement of supply of the drugs within the stipulated time period as per the two Purchase Orders for initiating the action of disqualification as the drugs ordered to be supplied and to be delivered at different destinations are meant for the patients attending and undergoing treatments at different Government health facilities throughout the State. The Show Cause Notice also indicated that in the event the petitioner was not able to show any satisfactory reason for such non-commencement of supply of the drugs ordered, an action to blacklist the petitioner would be taken. The petitioner, as has been mentioned above, in its reply to the Show Cause Notice, except mentioning that it met with a major crisis in its manufacturing plant resulting in halt of production, has not been able to produce any tangible materials in support of such ground. The petitioner had also admitted that there was inability on its part to supply the ordered drugs in terms of the two Purchase Orders and had sought for extension of time period to supply the drugs in terms of the Purchase Orders. 20. Clause 17[E] of the Bid Document has mentioned about the penalty for late delivery. The petitioner had also admitted that there was inability on its part to supply the ordered drugs in terms of the two Purchase Orders and had sought for extension of time period to supply the drugs in terms of the Purchase Orders. 20. Clause 17[E] of the Bid Document has mentioned about the penalty for late delivery. In the considered view of this Court, the said clause has provided for two options for the respondent NHM in case of delay of delivery in terms of a purchase order. The respondent NHM had the option of imposing a penalty at the rate prescribed in case of delay of delivery and after the maximum limit of 10% of the total order value is reached, the respondent NHM had the option of terminating the contract. Independent of the option for imposition of such penalty, the respondent NHM also had the option of disqualifying a defaulting successful bidder for non-performance of the contract provisions from participating in any tender process for a period of next 5 [five] years in addition to forfeiture of security deposit and other penal action. This Court is also of the considered view that the respondent NHM had the option of taking both the two actions together. Having regard to the procedure followed in the case in hand before passing the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017 disqualifying the petitioner for a period of 5 [five] years w.e.f. 20.09.2017 and factum of twin requirements read with the reply of the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice wherein there was clear admission on the part of the petitioner regarding the delay occurred in supplying the drugs ordered by the two Purchase Orders solely on its part, this Court has found no good and sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned Order dated 20.09.2017. In view of the above discussion, this Court find this writ petition bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. 21. The petitioner was allowed to supply the ordered drugs in terms of the two Purchase Orders at the time passing of the impugned Order by the respondent NHM. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. 21. The petitioner was allowed to supply the ordered drugs in terms of the two Purchase Orders at the time passing of the impugned Order by the respondent NHM. From the records, it has reflected that a proposal was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent NHM expressing its willingness to supply the ordered drugs and the respondent NHM had accepted such a proposal and thereafter, executed two contract-agreements on 26.09.2017. The petitioner was allowed to complete the supply of the drugs ordered by the two Purchase Orders under reference by executing two contract-agreements by the respondent NHM by stating that the measure was taken as a one-time exception. The learned counsel for the parties are not in disagreement to the fact that the petitioner company had supplied the drugs as per the two Purchase Orders and the respondent NHM had received the total ordered quantities. If the petitioner had supplied the orders in terms of the two Purchase Orders to the satisfaction of the respondent NHM, then the term of payment should abide by the conditions contained in the two contract-agreements.