ORDER : [RAJESH SHANKAR, J.] 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing show cause notice as contained in Ref. No. BCCL/CMC/Tptn43/Show_Cause/BKB/2021/549 dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2-the General Manager (Contract Management Cell), Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) whereby the petitioner has been called upon to file show cause reply as to why appropriate action should not be taken against it including termination of the contract, forfeiture of all dues including performance security deposit and it be not banned for a minimum period of two years from being eligible to submit bids in future tenders of Coal India Limited (CIL) and its subsidiaries. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in Ref. No. BCCL/CMC/Tptn43/Debar/BKB/2022/137 dated 24.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participating in future bids in all tenders of BCCL, in individual capacity or as a joint venture, for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of this order. 2. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, while explaining the factual background of the case submits that the respondent-BCCL published e-Notice Inviting Tender being NIT No. BCCL/CMC/F-e-NIT/Coal/Tptn43/Bastacolla/2021/182 dated 29.05.2021 from eligible bidders pertaining to the work of ‘Long Term Coal Transportation including crushing of coal from different sources of Bastacolla Area, BCCL to BNR Siding BCCL including allied jobs.’ Altogether 17 bidders including the petitioner and one M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd. submitted their bids. The petitioner, vide e-mail dated 12.10.2021, was informed by the respondent-BCCL that its bid was rejected during technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee on the ground of alleged act of submitting false declaration in Annexure-N at the time of submission of bid and thus it violated clause-4 (one bid per bidder) of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’. The respondent-BCCL uploaded the ‘Tender Summary Report’ and ‘Bid List Details’ on 13.10.2021 stating that the bid of the petitioner was rejected as per the recommendation of the competent authority due to violation of Clause-4 of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ i.e., it had submitted a false declaration in Annexure-N at the time of submission of bid. The respondent-BCCL opened the price bid on 13.10.2021 and one MJM-RSSG-DS(JV) was declared as the Lowest Bidder (LB-1). The respondent-BCCL opened the price bid on 13.10.2021 and one MJM-RSSG-DS(JV) was declared as the Lowest Bidder (LB-1). The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4427 of 2021 for quashing/setting aside the decision of the Respondent-BCCL disqualifying its technical bid pertaining to e-Tender Notice dated 29.05.2021 which was communicated to it through e-mail dated 12.10.2021 and the said writ petition is still pending. During pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was served a show cause notice as contained in Ref. No. BCCL/CMC/Tptn43/Show-Cause/BKB/2021/549 dated 03.12.2021, whereby it was directed to show cause as to why its all dues including performance security deposit be not forfeited and it be not banned for a period of minimum two years from being eligible to submit bids in future tenders of Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries. The petitioner filed preliminary reply to the said show cause notice on 14.12.2021 stating that it had already filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4427 of 2021 and the issues involved in the said writ petition were directly overlapping with the issues for which the show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 was issued to it and thus it was requested that the said show cause notice may be kept in abeyance. The petitioner also filed interlocutory application in W.P.(C) No. 4427 of 2021 praying inter alia to stay the show cause notice dated 03.12.2021. The said writ petition was taken up for consideration on 23.12.2021 wherein submission on behalf of the petitioner was recorded that it, inadvertently, did not challenge the impugned show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 and sought adjournment to enable it to workout appropriate recourse as provided under law. Subsequently, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 as well as for staying the same by filing an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 128 of 2022. However, during pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent no. 2 passed the final order dated 24.03.2022 debarring the petitioner from participating in future bids in all tenders of BCCL, in individual capacity or as a joint venture, for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of the said order which has also been challenged by the petitioner by amending the writ petition. 3. 2 passed the final order dated 24.03.2022 debarring the petitioner from participating in future bids in all tenders of BCCL, in individual capacity or as a joint venture, for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of the said order which has also been challenged by the petitioner by amending the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that issuance of show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 is itself wholly arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner being a Company is neither having any controlling Director in common with “M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd.’ nor does it receive or has received any direct or indirect subsidy or has any financial stake in ‘M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd.’ The legal representative/agent of the petitioner is a separate and distinct person for purposes of the bid and has no co-relation with the legal representative or agent of the other company i.e., ‘M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd.’. In fact, the petitioner does not even know as to who is the legal representative/agent of the said company. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner-company has no relationship with ‘M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd.’ directly or through common parties, and merely because one of the Directors of the petitioner-company is family member of one of the Directors of ‘M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd.’, Clause-4.2(d) of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ cannot be said to be attracted. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is presumed that Clause-4 of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ is attracted in the case of the petitioner, the same, at best, could have led to disqualification of the bids submitted by it and that of M/s. Variant Commercial Private Ltd., and the alleged violation of the aforesaid clause cannot be invoked for forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit/Security Deposit of the petitioner as well as for banning it from participating in future bids in all tenders of BCCL, in individual capacity or as a joint venture, for a minimum period of two years. 5. 5. It is further submitted that on bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 03.12.2021, it would transpire that the same has been issued to the petitioner for alleged violation of Clause-4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ on the sole allegation that one M/s. Variant Commercial Private Ltd. also submitted its bid and one of the Directors of the petitioner namely, Arun Kumar Agarwal is the father of Sourav Agrawal, who is one of the Directors of ‘M/s. Variant Commercial Private Ltd.’. It has been alleged that aforesaid submission of two bids not only violates Clause-4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ but also goes against the declaration given by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-N of the Tender Document. 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Annexure-N i.e., the declaration given by the petitioner, its bid was in compliance of Clause-4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ of Tender Document and if any violation to this Clause was found at any stage of tender/contract, the respondent-BCCL could initiate penal actions against the petitioner in terms with the provisions of the Notice Inviting Tender/Tender Document. Violation of Clause-4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ gives rise to penal action as provided in the said Clause itself which can be invoked only for disqualifying the bid of the petitioner and no further penal action has been stipulated for violation of Clause 4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ of the Tender Document. The issuance of show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 amounts to abuse of the process of law as the respondents are intending to re-open and re-litigate the issue which has finally been decided by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 150 of 2020 (Tribhuvan Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.) with LP.A. No. 197 of 2020 (SGPL TCPL BP (JV) v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited). 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that almost identical issue with respect to interpretation of Clause 4 of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ came up for consideration before learned Division Bench of this court in the case of Tribhuvan Carrier Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein more than one bid were submitted by the bidders in violation of Clause 4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders and in the said case, the respondent-BCCL disqualified the bids of the two bidders and forfeited their Earnest Money Deposit as well as blacklisted the said bidders for a period of five years. Learned Division Bench, vide judgment dated 26th July, 2021, held that under Clause 4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’, the consequence for violation of the said clause was itself provided mentioning that the bid would be rejected and nothing more and quoting identical price in two bids ipso facto does not prove collusion between the appellants. It was further held that there was no reason indicated in the order dated 31.07.2019 as to why action under two clauses of the Integrity Pact i.e forfeiture of EMD and blacklisting was taken. It was also held that employer had powers under Clause-6 of the Integrity Pact to resort to any one or more than one or all punitive measures simultaneously but existence of such power would not justify composite action of forfeiture of EMD and blacklisting without giving specific reasons for such action. 8. It is also submitted that one NKAS Services Pvt. Ltd. and one RA Mining Pvt. Ltd. had also participated in the tender process and one of the shareholders of each of the aforesaid companies were directly related to each other being own brothers, however the BCCL declared them technically qualified in the tender process. Thus, the respondent-BCCL has adopted discriminatory attitude in the matter of qualifying and/or disqualifying the bid of one or the other bidders. The petitioner had submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 requesting the respondent-BCCL to grant opportunity of hearing, however the respondents without considering the show cause reply in its true spirit, passed the order of debarment which is highly arbitrary and is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as well. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been debarred from participating in the future bids in all tenders of BCCL for a period of two years by referring the statement made at Point no. 13 of the ‘Format of Undertaking’ (Annexure-C to the Tender Document) and “Declaration” (Annexure-N to the Tender Document). It has been mentioned in the ‘Declaration’ that the respondent-BCCL may initiate penal actions against the petitioner as per provisions of the NIT/Tender Document, if any violation of Clause-4 of ‘Instruction to Bidders” is found at any stage whereas the Point no. 13 of ‘Format of Undertaking’ states about imposition of ‘ban’ for minimum period of two years from submitting bids in future tenders of Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries. Even in the show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 issued to the petitioner, the proposed action of banning in terms with Annexure-C of the tender document was stipulated, however contrary to the terms & conditions of the NIT/Tender Document and the show cause notice, the petitioner has been debarred for a period of two years from participating in future tender of BCCL. The term ‘debarment/blacklisting’ is nomen juris and the same has been the subject matter of several legal interpretations. The term ‘debarment’ cannot be equated with the term ‘ban’ and thus the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 is beyond the scope of show cause notice. If instead of the order of debarment, only ban had been imposed upon the petitioner, it would have been able to participate in tenders issued by the other government entities. Thus, due to the order of debarment, the petitioner is not only unable to participate in the tenders issued by BCCL but is also unable to participate in any tender of other government entities including CCL, NTPC etc. 10. Mr. Gadodia also submits that the word ‘false’ as mentioned in Point no. 13 of Annexure-C would mean that the penal action as stipulated in the said Clause would attract only when a thing is done with knowledge that it is untrue or illegal. In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 245 wherein it has been held as under: – “18. In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 245 wherein it has been held as under: – “18. The dictionary meaning of word “false” means that, which is in essence incorrect, or purposefully untrue, deceitful, etc. Thus, the word “false” is used to cover only unlawful falsehood. It means something that is dishonest, untrue and deceitful, and implies an intention to perpetrate some treachery or fraud. In jurisprudence, the word “false” is used to characterise a wrongful or criminal act, done intentionally and knowingly, with knowledge, actual or constructive. The word “false” may also be used in a wide or narrower sense. When used in its wider sense, it means something that is untrue whether or not stated intentionally or knowingly, but when used in its narrower sense, it may cover only such falsehoods, which are intentional. The question whether in a particular enactment, the word “false” is used in a restricted sense or a wider sense, depends upon the context in which it is used.” 11. On the contrary, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that all the clauses of tender document are clear and unambiguous. Moreover, there was a provision for seeking clarification through the portal within the specified period as per NIT, however the petitioner did not seek any clarification regarding Clause-4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ of the Tender Document. 12. It is further submitted that the relationship has been established between one of the directors of the petitioner and one of the directors of M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd. as per the affidavit given by the petitioner which attracts clause 4 (one bid per bidder) of the “Instructions to Bidders”. Since one of the directors of the petitioner namely Arun Kumar Agarwal is the father of one of the directors of M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd. namely Sourav Agrawal, the same puts them in a position to have access to information about or influence on the bid of another bidder and therefore the order of debarment of the petitioner has been passed. 13. 13. It has been declared on affidavit filed by the accredited representative of M/s. NKAS Services Pvt. Limited that Narayan Prasad Agarwala was neither a director nor a shareholder at the time of submission of bid and as such his relationship, if any, with Liladhar Agarwala doesn't fall within the definition of relationship as indicated in the tender document. Thus, the tender committee has opined that the said bidder has not violated’ Annexure-N’ giving declaration regarding compliance of Clause 4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ of the tender document and it may be further considered for purpose of awarding the tender. 14. It is also submitted that after following the due process of law, the tender has been awarded and the work order has been issued in favour of M/s. MJM-RSSG-DS(JV) on 25.10.2021. The order of debarment of the petitioner has been passed after due compliance of the principles of natural justice and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that an appeal has been preferred by the respondent-BCCL & Anr. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 3263 of 2022 against the order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 150 of 2020 with L.P.A. No. 197 of 2020 and vide order dated 08.04.2022, the order of learned Division Bench of this Court has been stayed. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Engineering Limited v. Union of India reported in (2012) 11 SCC 257 and submits that the State can decline to enter into a contractual relationship with a person or a class of persons for a legitimate purpose. The authority of the State to blacklist a person is a necessary concomitant to the executive power of the State to carry on the trade or the business and making of contracts for any purpose, etc. There need not be any statutory grant of such power. The only legal limitation upon the exercise of such an authority is that the State has to act fairly and rationally without being arbitrary, thereby such a decision can be taken for some legitimate purpose. What is the legitimate purpose sought to be achieved by the State in a given case can vary depending upon various factors. 16. The only legal limitation upon the exercise of such an authority is that the State has to act fairly and rationally without being arbitrary, thereby such a decision can be taken for some legitimate purpose. What is the legitimate purpose sought to be achieved by the State in a given case can vary depending upon various factors. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 debarring it from participating in future bids in all tenders of BCCL, in individual capacity or as a joint venture, for a period of 2 years. 17. On bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 03.12.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2, it appears that for violation of Clause-4 of the ‘Instruction to Bidders’ of Tender Document, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why action should not be taken against it for forfeiture of all the dues and to ban it for a period of minimum two years from being eligible to submit bids in future tenders of Coal India Limited (CIL) and its subsidiaries in the light of undertaking given by it at point no. 13 (wrongly written as point no. 12) of Annexure-C. 18. In the impugned order dated 24.03.2022, the respondent no. 2 has referred Point no. 13 of Annexure-C of the bid document which stipulates that if any information and document submitted by the petitioner is found to be false/incorrect at any time, the department may cancel the bid and action as deemed fit may be taken against the concerned bidder including termination of the contract, forfeiture of all dues including Performance Security deposit and to ban the bidder for minimum two years (including all individual partners of JV/Partnership firm) from being eligible to submit bids in future tenders of CIL and its subsidiaries. Additionally, the Company, without prejudice to any other right or remedy, will be at liberty, to initiate other legal actions against the bidder. The respondent no. Additionally, the Company, without prejudice to any other right or remedy, will be at liberty, to initiate other legal actions against the bidder. The respondent no. 2 has further referred declaration given by the petitioner in Annexure-N of the Tender Document wherein it has been stated that the bid is being submitted in compliance of Clause-4 of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ of Tender document and if any violation of this clause is found at any stage of tender/contract, BCCL may initiate penal actions as per provisions of the NIT/Tender Document. 19. The respondent no. 2 has observed that Clause-4 of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ is one of the clauses in the tender document, which seeks to deal with transparency in the bidding process as well as integrity of a bidder which is required to be adhered with all strictness. The respondent no. 2 has finally held that undoubtedly there is relationship between one of the Directors of the petitioner and one of the Directors of the other company namely M/s. Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and the same squarely comes within the ambit of Clause 4.2 of the ITB, hence it can be said that the relationship between these two was of such a nature which put both the entities in a position to have access to information or influence on the bid of another bidder. Thus, according to the respondent no. 2, there was no doubt that Clause 4.2 was deliberately violated and the petitioner had intentionally given false undertaking in Annexure-C which was known to it as well as false declaration in the format of Annexure-N of the Tender Document was furnished by the petitioner for participating in the bidding process of the work under reference. Therefore, such deliberate and intentional act goes to the root of matter touching upon transparency of the bidding process and integrity of bidder and as such needs to be dealt with accordingly. 20. From the record it appears to this court that a separate writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4427 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of disqualification wherein the subject matter of issue is the violation of Clause-4 of the Instruction to Bidders and submission of false declaration in Annexure-N. Thus, this court is confined to the question as to whether the respondent no. 2 was right in passing the order of debarment of petitioner from participating in future bids in all tenders of BCCL, in individual capacity or as a joint venture for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the order. 21. To appreciate the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer Clause-4 of the Tender Document. “4. ONE BID PER BIDDER 4.1 Each Bidder shall submit only one Bid, either individually, or as a partner in a partnership firm or a partner in a Joint Venture or as a Company registered under Companies Act. A Bidder who submits or participates in more than one Bid (other than as a subcontractor or in cases of alternatives that have been permitted or requested) will cause all the proposals with the Bidder's participation to be disqualified. 4.2 Conflict of Interest. A Bidder may be considered to have a Conflict of Interest with one or more parties in this bidding process, if: a) they have controlling partner(s) in common; or b) they receive or have received any direct or indirect subsidy/financial stake from any of them; or c) they have the same legal representative/agent for purposes of this bid; or d) they have relationship with each other, directly or through common third parties, that puts them in a position to have access to information about or influence on the bid of another Bidder; or e) a Bidder or any of its affiliate participated as a consultant in the preparation of the design or technical specification of the contract that is the subject of the bid; or f) in case of a holding company having more than one Subsidiary/Sister Concern having common business ownership/management only one of them can bid. Bidders must proactively declare such sister/common business/management in Business in same/similar line of Business. All such Bidders having a Conflict of Interest, shall be disqualified.” 22. Clause-4 of the ‘Instructions to Bidders’ provides for “one bid per bidder”. In view of Clause 4.1, each bidder is required to submit only one bid either individually, or as a partner in a partnership firm or a partner in a Joint Venture or as a Company registered under the Companies Act. It has further been provided that all the bids of a bidder, who submits more than one bid, shall be disqualified. It has further been provided that all the bids of a bidder, who submits more than one bid, shall be disqualified. Clause 4.2 speaks of the situations under which a bidder may be considered to have a ‘Conflict of Interest’ with one or more parties in the bidding process. The penal action for conflict of interest is disqualification of the bidders as provided in Clause 4.2 itself. 23. In the present case, since the penal action of disqualification of bidder was provided in the said clause itself for non-compliance of Clause 4.2, I am of the view that the respondent no. 2 was not justified in passing the order of debarment of the petitioner. 24. Further, while passing the order of debarment, the respondent no. 2 has heavily relied upon the declaration given by the petitioner under ‘Annexure-N’ to the effect that its bid is being submitted in compliance of the Clause-4 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ of Tender Document and if any violation to this clause is found at any stage of tender/contract, the respondent BCCL may initiate penal actions against the petitioner in terms with the conditions of the NIT/Tender Document. The declaration given by the petitioner in Annexure-N also states about taking penal action as per provisions of NIT in case of any violation of the said Clause. Clause 4.2 itself provides that all such bidders having a conflict of interest shall be disqualified and thus even if the allegation levelled against the petitioner by the respondent is accepted to be true, then also the order of debarment cannot be passed against the petitioner. The declaration given by the petitioner under Point No.-13 of Annexure-C is general in nature which provides for passing of order of debarment and forfeiture of all dues including performance security if any information and document submitted by the petitioner is found false and incorrect and such general declaration cannot be applied for violation of Clause-4.2 of the “Instruction to Bidders’, which speaks of the specific consequence for violation of such clause i.e., disqualification of the bidder. 25. The contention of the respondents is that since one of the Directors of the petitioner is father of one of the Directors of Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd., there was every chance of access of information between the bidders or influence on the bid of another bidder. 25. The contention of the respondents is that since one of the Directors of the petitioner is father of one of the Directors of Variant Commercial Pvt. Ltd., there was every chance of access of information between the bidders or influence on the bid of another bidder. I am of the view that clause 4.2(d) which is relevant for the present case is not clear and unambiguous as has been claimed by the respondents and thus the observation made by the respondent no. 2 that the petitioner has deliberately violated Clause 4.2 as well as has intentionally given false declaration under Annexure-N is without any cogent and justifiable reason. No doubt, the writ court should not make its own interpretation of the terms of a tender at the behest of a third party competing in the tender and it is only the tender inviting authority which can give best interpretation of any tender term, however the order of debarment having severe civil consequence should not be passed against a bidder for violation of such type of condition unless its term is apparently clear and unambiguous. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corpn. of India reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 has held that that blacklisting has severe consequences including stigma being faced by the concerned person/entity. Blacklisting not only takes away this privilege but 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. 27. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2021) 1 SCC 804 , has held that an order of blacklisting operates to the prejudice of a commercial person not only in praesenti but also puts a taint which attaches far beyond and may well spell the death knell of the organisation/institution for all times to come described as a civil death. 28. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am of the considered view that even if the interpretation given by the respondent no. 28. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am of the considered view that even if the interpretation given by the respondent no. 2 in the impugned order is accepted as correct, then also the petitioner is liable for disqualification which is the only penal action stipulated in Clause 4.2 of ‘Instructions to Bidders’ of the Tender Document and for such violation, the order of debarment cannot be passed. 29. Accordingly, the order as contained in Ref. No. BCCL/CMC/Tptn43/Debar/BKB/2022/137 dated 24.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 debarring the petitioner from participating in future bids in all tenders of BCCL, in individual capacity or as a joint venture, for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of order is quashed and set aside. 30. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.