ORDER : 1. These petitions have been brought under Article 226 Constitution of India praying for quashment of impugment order No.3045/ ik-iq-fu-@eqnz.k@2020&21@2021 dated 02.01.2021 in W.P.C. No.1305/2021, 3049/ ik-iq-fu-@eqnz.k@2020&21@2021 dated 02.01.2021 in W.P.C. No.1286/2021, 3051/ ik-iq-fu-@eqnz.k@2020&21@2021 dated 02.01.2021 in W.P.C. No.1325 of 2021. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners in all three cases are engaged in printing and publishing business. The respondent corporation issued e-tender notice No.P-3/2020-21 for printing, binding and distribution of text-books on all India basis in the academic year 2020-21. The bid of the petitioners in all three cases were accepted and they got alotment of work orders in their favours which is dated 18.02.2020, 18.02.2020 and 17.01.2020 in W.P.C. No.1305/2021, 1286/2021 and 1325/2021 respectively. Time limitation for completion of work was 90 days from the date of receipt of C.D./positives and work orders. It is submitted that the positives for carrying out the printing work were not provided to the petitioners. Petitioners in all three cases submitted the request for providing positives and also the release orders of the printing papers in the month of March 2020. Later on, due to the pandemic conditions, the petitioners in all three cases were compelled to close their printing press with effect from 22.03.2020 regarding which an intimation was sent to the respondent authorities on 24.03.2020. Further, due to the lock-down and the continuation of the pandemic situation, the work could not be completed. Non-supply of the positives and the release order were also the reason for the non-completion of the work in time. Later on, the petitioners in all three cases have completed the work. Petitioner in W.P.C. No.1305/2021 completed the work on 25.07.2020. The petitioner in W.P.C. No.1286/2021 completed on 11.07.2020 and petitioner in W.P.C. No.1325/2021 completed on 22.06.2020. It is submitted that without issuance of any show cause notice and without complying any lawful process, petitioners have been blacklisted by the impugned orders passed by the respondents in their respective cases. 3. It is submitted that the delay in completion of the work is very much attributable to the respondent authorities. 4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nasir Ahemed vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, U.P., Lucknowa reported in (1980) 3 SCC 1 on the point of show cause notice. 5. 3. It is submitted that the delay in completion of the work is very much attributable to the respondent authorities. 4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nasir Ahemed vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, U.P., Lucknowa reported in (1980) 3 SCC 1 on the point of show cause notice. 5. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharda Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr. in W.P.(C.) No.1297 of 2021 decided on 08.09.2021, it was a similar case in which the relief was granted to the petitioner. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions and submits that time limit was presribed in the work orders. On prayer made by the petitioners, extention of time was also granted time to time. The petitioners are making pretext of non-availability of positives, whereas the fact is this that the petitioners in all the cases did not approach to collect the positives. The C.D. was already provided to the petitioners. All three petitioners have not completed the work in full and they have performed partially. It is further submitted that it is a dispute between the petitioners and the respondents, which could have been referred for arbitration as the petitioner and the respondents had agreed to the arbitration clause in the agreement. 7. It is further submitted that in the present case, time was the essence of contract. Hence, the petitioners have no entitlement for any relief, therefore, petitions may be rejected. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the present case, time was not the essence of contract, therefore, the respondent authorities have granted extension. It is also submitted that the C.D. has never been supplied by the respondents to the petitioners, which is one of the important reasons, why the work could not be completed in time. 9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents present on record. 10. Considered on the submissions. There is no such submission and argument and reply by the respondent side, that any show cause notice for black-listing was ever served upon the petitioners before passing the order of black-listing against them. It is a submission of the respondents' side that the clause 16.9 of the notice inviting tender was invoked. 11. 10. Considered on the submissions. There is no such submission and argument and reply by the respondent side, that any show cause notice for black-listing was ever served upon the petitioners before passing the order of black-listing against them. It is a submission of the respondents' side that the clause 16.9 of the notice inviting tender was invoked. 11. The Clause 16.9 of the notice inviting tender is as follows:- “16.9 – If the tenderer is awarded to the lowest rate printer on the basis of L-1 rate of group/groups and Nigam allots the printing works to the tenderer on the basis of his L-1 rate (Lowest Tenderer) of group/groups then also if the tenderer refuse to do the printing work or work not completed, in this condition Nigam has right to put the tenderer in BLACK LIST for 3 (Three) years and security deposit and EMD will be forfeited.” 12. It is a statement in reply that the petitioners were served with show cause notice which has been duly suppressed by the petitioners. The notice is dated 13.04.2020 vide Annexure-R/5 in W.P.(C.) No.1305/2021 which has been replied by the petitioner vide Annexure-P/10. The copy of notice in W.P. No.1325/2021 is Annexure-R/4 which has been replied by the petitioner and the same document has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-P/10 which was replied by annexure-P/12. In W.P.C. No.1286, the copy of notice is annexure-R/5, which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-P/9 and the reply submitted is Annexure-P/10. The question is whether the above mentioned documents can be regarded as an issuance of show cause notice before the passing of order of black listing. The last and relevant paragraph of the letter dated 13.04.2020 is common in all the above mentioned documents which is reproduced as under:- ^^3- laiw.kZ fu;e 'krksZa ds lkFk gh vkidks eqnz.k dk;Z vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gSA fuxe }kjk vkcafVr@vknsf'kr eqnz.k dk;Z dks djus ls euk djus vFkok vleFkZrk O;Dr djus dh fLFkfr esa fuxe fufonk dh dafMdkvksa 16-3] 16-9] 19-1 ,oa 19-3 ds rgr dk;Zokgh gsrq Lora= gksxkA** 13. The words of the above mentioned paragraph in the letter dated 13.04.2020 commonly issued to the petitioners in all three cases are on this point that in case the petitioners deny to complete the work or show inability to complete the work, in that case, the respondent authorities shall have the liberty to proceed under clause 16.9 of the notice inviting tender. The body of the letter of 13.04.2020 emphasizes on completion of the printing work and nowhere it mentions that this letter was a notice for consideration on the black listing of the petitioners. 14. In the case of Gorkha Security Services Versus Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , it is held in paragarph 33 :- “33. When we apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case, it becomes difficult to accept the argument of the learned ASG. In the first instance, we may point out that no such case was set up by the respondents that by omitting to state the proposed action of blacklisting, the appellant in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. Moreover, had the action of black listing being specifically proposed in the show cause notice, the appellant could have mentioned as to why such extreme penalty is not justified. It could have come out with extenuating circumstances defending such an action even if the defaults were there and the Department was not satisfied with the explanation qua the defaults. It could have even pleaded with the Department not to blacklist the appellant or do it for a lesser period in case the Department still wanted to black list the appellant. Therefore, it is not at all acceptable that non mentioning of proposed blacklisting in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. This apart, the extreme nature of such a harsh penalty like blacklisting with severe consequences, would itself amount to causing prejudice to the appellant.” 15. In the case of U.M.C. Technologies Private Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 . The Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 18 and 19 as follows:- “18. This apart, the extreme nature of such a harsh penalty like blacklisting with severe consequences, would itself amount to causing prejudice to the appellant.” 15. In the case of U.M.C. Technologies Private Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 . The Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 18 and 19 as follows:- “18. This Court in Gorkha Security Services Versus Government (NCT of Delhi) 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. 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.” 16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is very much clear that no specific notice was ever served upon the petitioners before passing the impugned orders of black listing them by an invoking clause 19.3 of the notice inviting tender. Although this clause empowers the respondent to black list the person concerned but as per the clause, the case law cited the principle of natural justice has to be followed before passing such order, which has extreme consequences. Although this clause empowers the respondent to black list the person concerned but as per the clause, the case law cited the principle of natural justice has to be followed before passing such order, which has extreme consequences. The issuance of letter dated 13.04.2020 commonly to all the petitioners is not a specific notice making a clear proposition to black list the petitioners. The main emphasis in this letter is for completion of the alloted work and the last paragraph of the letter mentions of the consequences, which may be faced by the petitioners in case they could not complete the work or refuse to complete the work. Therefore, this letter can never be termed as a notice, which is required to be served in the matter of consideration of black listing the party. Hence, for the reasons, I am of this view that all the three petitions are fit to be allowed. All three petitions are allowed. The impugment order No.3045/ ik-iq-fu-@eqnz.k@2020&21@2021 dated 02.01.2021 in W.P.C. No.1305/2021, 3049/ ik-iq-fu-@eqnz.k@2020&21@2021 dated 02.01.2021 in W.P.C. No.1286/2021, 3051/ ik-iq-fu-@eqnz.k@2020&21@2021 dated 02.01.2021 in W.P.C. No.1325 of 2021 are hereby quashed.