ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash letter dated 20.9.2022 (Annexure-4) issued by respondent No. 1-the Director, Electrical Engineering (Rolling Stock), whereby, the petitioner along with its allied/sister concerns and partners are banned by all Indian Railways including the Project Organizations, Production Unit and Railway PSUs etc. under the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) for a period of five years with immediate effect. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the cause of action for banning business with the petitioner, if at all, arose in the year 2008 and the alleged allegations is of submission of a forged work completion certificate in respect of Tender Notice No. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451 dated 20.2.2008. He submits that the aforesaid work under the tender was completed by the petitioner without any complaint and even the final payment was made in favour of the petitioner and security deposit was also released. 14 years after closure of the said agreement, the impugned order was passed by the respondent authority, which is arbitrary. He further submitted that if at all the certificate of completion, which was submitted by the petitioner, was fake, then the respondent-Railways would have immediately acted upon the same but for the reasons best known, the punishment has been awarded after 14 years, which creates doubt about the bona fide of the respondents. He lastly submits that the banning of business with the petitioner, is for five years, is too harsh, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which needs to be reconsidered. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner furnished a forged document, on the basis of which, he obtained the tender in the year 2008, but once the same was brought to the notice of the respondents, they had taken action against the petitioner. He argues that the respondents cannot be forced to enter into a business relationship with an entity who has furnished fake documents. As per him, the alleged delay of 14 years cannot be said to be fatal as the facts remains that the petitioner furnished fake document for which, the respondents are free to take action against them. Time cannot wash away the fraudulent act of the petitioner. As per him, the alleged delay of 14 years cannot be said to be fatal as the facts remains that the petitioner furnished fake document for which, the respondents are free to take action against them. Time cannot wash away the fraudulent act of the petitioner. He also argues that the issuance of the tender in the year 2008 and successful completion of the same cannot come in favour of the petitioner as because the documents furnished by the petitioner to obtain the aforesaid contract were forged and fraud vitiates all action. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner was awarded a contract, issued under the Tender Notice No. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451 dated 20.02.2008. The work was of maintenance of Electric Running Room at DPS (i.e. cooking, serving of meals, security, providing news paper and magazines, up-keeping of lawn/garden, cleaning of buildings and lavatory etc. Along with the said tender, the petitioner had to furnish completion certificate of similar nature of work valuation of which would be Rs.7,90,000/-. The petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the Society for Information and Advancement of Adiwasi (ASRA) Chaibasa, Singhbhum (W) vide letter No. 2.2.2008. The said certificate was signed by one Paras Nath Tiu, the Secretary, ASRA. Based on the said certificate, the respondent awarded the work to the petitioner. The work was awarded on 1.5.2008 for a period of two years. The work was completed on 7.6.2010 with 49.12% variations and time extension of one month one day. In the meantime, on 27.4.2010, the then ADEE(OP)/CKP personally verified the said certificate, issued by Paras Nath Tiu, the Secretary, ASRA and submitted a report to the effect that the said certificate is forged. As the said action of the petitioner amounts to misconduct, a notice was issued to the petitioner along with memorandum and statement of charges. In the said Memorandum, the misconducts were specified and the proposed punishment was also reflected. It was mentioned that why not the business under the Ministry of Railways and all Indian Railway with the petitioner or with Allied/sisters concern be banned for five years. Documents were also provided to the petitioner along with statement of imputation. The petitioner submitted a reply which was duly considered. Thereafter a decision was taken to blacklist the petitioner for five years with immediate effect. 5. Documents were also provided to the petitioner along with statement of imputation. The petitioner submitted a reply which was duly considered. Thereafter a decision was taken to blacklist the petitioner for five years with immediate effect. 5. We find that after a proper enquiry, it was found by the respondents that the petitioner had deliberately submitted a fake completion certificate and obtained a contract. This act of the petitioner, as per respondents, is an act involving moral turpitude in relation to business dealing, with a view to cheat the Indian Railways. In fact undue benefit was derived by the petitioner by submitting fake documents. 6. The report of enquiry submitted by ADEE(OP)CKP clearly suggests that the authority visited ASRA on 26.4.2010 and met Sri Paras Nath Tiu. Said Paras Nath Tiu after going through the certificate confirmed that the said certificate is a fake documents. Based on the said certificate, the petitioner was show caused and thereafter considering his reply, action was taken against him. After proper inquiry, the authority arrived at conclusion that the certificate was fake. Fraud vitiates all action. This is also a question of fact, which cannot be re-apprised in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, we do not find any material to disbelieve the aforesaid fact. 7. We also find that the respondents had given appropriate opportunity of hearing the petitioner to defend himself by issuing detailed show cause notice along with memorandum of charges annexing all the relevant documents including the report and the letter of Paras Nath Tiu, wherein he mentions that the certificate is fake. Further the show cause notice clearly suggests the proposed action which the respondent wanted to take i.e. debarring the petitioner or its allied/sisters concern or partners from entering into any business relationship with the Indian railways or the Ministry of Railways. We find that the requirements of principle of natural justice has been complied with in this case. 8. This Court, sitting in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not an Appellate Court. In judicial review, the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can review the process by which, the authorities arrived at a conclusion. The decision making process is reviewed only. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. In judicial review, the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can review the process by which, the authorities arrived at a conclusion. The decision making process is reviewed only. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Mehar Din, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 648 in paragraph 27 has held as under; “27. This being a settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and in the given circumstances under the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a court of appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Siemens Limited Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors., reported in (2014) 11 SCC 288 in paragraph 23 has held as under; 23. There is no gainsaying that in any challenge to the award of contract before the High Court and so also before this Court what is to be examined is the legality and regularity of the process leading to award of contract. What the Court has to constantly keep in mind is that it does not sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision. The Court can only examine whether the decision-making process was fair, reasonable and transparent. In cases involving award of contracts, the Court ought to exercise judicial restraint where the decision is bona fide with no perceptible injury to public interest. 9. Thus the decision making process can only be scrutinized. In this case, we do not find any flaw in the decision making process. The respondents, after proper enquiry and after giving proper opportunity, has passed the impugned order. Be it noted that once it has been established that the petitioner has committed fraud in obtaining the tender, it was well within the domain of the respondents to suspend future business relationship with the petitioner. The respondents, after proper enquiry and after giving proper opportunity, has passed the impugned order. Be it noted that once it has been established that the petitioner has committed fraud in obtaining the tender, it was well within the domain of the respondents to suspend future business relationship with the petitioner. No authority can be forced to enter into a business relationship with a party, which admittedly has committed fraud in course of dealing with the said organization. Thus we find no illegality in the decision making process and the respondents were well within their jurisdiction to pass the impugned order debarring the petitioner from entering into business dealing with the respondent-Indian Railways or the Ministry of Railways. We find no illegality in the impugned order. 10. Now the question is the period for which, the petitioner has been banned from the business transaction. In the instant case, the petitioner has been banned, for five years. For a small business firm, this period of five years is too a long period and as per this Court, the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate also. 11. We are of the view that the period of blacklisting of the petitioner should have been from two to three years. This is our mere expression of opinion, but it is the respondent who has to take a final decision on the same. We, thus without interfering with the order of banning, remit the matter to the competent authority in the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) to re-consider the quantum of punishment imposed. The said decision should be taken by the appropriate authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with representation of the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is partly allowed. 13. There shall be no orders as to costs. 14. Urgent certified copy as per Rules.