ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed with following prayer: “(a) Call for the records of the Respondents leading to the passing of Order dated 2.8.2019 bearing No. Pa. 3(5) Ra. Aa. Mi/Vitt-Kraya Samithi/2017-18/1684-94 and Order dated 2.8.2019, bearing No. Pa.3 (5) Ra. Aa. Mi/Vitt-Kraya Samithi/2017-18/1662-72 and Order dated 9.10.2019 bearing No. Pa.3(5)Ra. Aa. Mi/Vitt-Kraya Samiti/2164-74 and also the Order dated 9.10.2019 bearing No. Pa.3(5)/Ra. Aa. Mi/Vitt-Kraya Samiti/2153-63 and issue an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the same. (b) Direct that directs the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in all future tenders floated by them subject to their qualification. (c) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners. (d) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the legality and validity of the aforesaid orders to the extent whereby, it has been blacklisted and not qua imposition of penalty for short supply. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that on remaining successful in the NIT dated 22.11.2016 floated by the respondents for supply of Ayurvedic medicines, an agreement dated 20.03.2017 was entered in between the petitioner and the respondents. Vide purchase order dated 24.03.2017, the petitioner was required to supply 14 Ayurvedic medicines including Eladi Gutika. Present dispute confines to supply of medicine Eladi Gutika. Considering the technical problem being faced by the petitioner in manufacturing of medicine ‘Eladi Gutika’ the respondents, vide letter dated 27.04.2018, cancelled its purchase order with immediate effect. Vide its Notice No. 1195-97 dated 17.06.2019, proposing a penalty under Clause 49 (5) of the tender conditions, an explanation of the petitioner was called for supply of substandard ‘Eladi Gutika’ medicine based upon a Government recognized laboratory report as also subsequent report of the Govt. Ayurveda Laboratory, Ajmer dated 07.03.2018. Vide another show cause notice No. 1192-94 dated 17.06.2019, explanation of the petitioner was called for short supply of certain medicines failing which action under Clause 16 of the tender conditions was proposed. Vide office order No. 1684-94 dated 02.08.2019 referring to the two reports wherein, the medicine ‘Eladi Gutika’ was found to be substandard, the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of three years. Vide office order No. 1684-94 dated 02.08.2019 referring to the two reports wherein, the medicine ‘Eladi Gutika’ was found to be substandard, the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of three years. Vide another office order No. 1662-72 dated 02.08.2019, along with penalty of Rs. 1,44,015/- the petitioner was also blacklisted for a period of three years for short supply of medicines. The office order dated 02.08.2019 qua blacklisting for a period of three years was revised by the respondents vide office order No. 2164-74 dated 09.10.2019 whereby, the period of blacklisting was reduced to three months subject to deposition of the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner for short supply. The penalty imposed vide order No. 1662-72 dated 02.08.2019 was also revised and reduced vide office dated 09.10.2019 to Rs. 46,053/- with modification in period of blacklisting for three years to three months. It is admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid penalty was deposited by the petitioner within the prescribed time as also that the lot of medicine ‘Eladi Gutika’ supplied before cancellation of its purchase order, was returned back to the petitioner by the respondents without consumption. 4. Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the supply order for medicine ‘Eladi Gutika’ was cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 27.04.2018, there was no occasion for them to have issued the petitioner a show cause notice more than one year thereafter proposing a penalty of blacklisting alleging the medicine to be substandard. He submits that supply of the test reports along with the show cause notice was sine qua non for its validity in absence whereof, the notice was void-ab-initio. Learned Senior Counsel inviting attention of this Court towards the report dated 08.12.2017 issued by the State Ayurvedic Drug Testing Laboratory, Uttarakhand and the report dated 28.02.2018 issued by the S.R. Labs. Jaipur, placed on record along with their memo of reply as Annexure-R/1 and relied upon by the respondents for passing the impugned order, would submit that while in the first report, the sample was reported to be of not good quality, in the subsequent report dated 28.02.2018, the same was found of standard quality as per the tested parameters. He submits that the respondents have not placed on record any report by any laboratory wherein, the medicine was found to be of substandard quality. He submits that the respondents have not placed on record any report by any laboratory wherein, the medicine was found to be of substandard quality. Referring to the show cause notices dated 17.06.2019 and dated even, learned Senior Counsel submits that in none of the notices, the penalty of blacklisting was proposed. He further submits that despite submission of the reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice and its receipt by the respondents, the same was not taken into consideration on the premise that it was received beyond the prescribed period which is violative of the principles of natural justice. Referring to Clause 3.4 of the guidelines dated 04.04.2018 issued by the Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation for blacklisting or debarring of product or company, learned Senior Counsel submits that the penalty of blacklisting is highly disproportionate to the error found. He, in this regard, also relied upon Clauses 4.5 & 4.6 of the guidelines which speak of blacklisting in case of quality of item supplied not being in conformity with the quality test or of being grossly substandard. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the orders imposing the penalty of blacklisting be quashed and set aside. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon following judgments: 1. M/s. Nayak Construction vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 2017 Raj. 12 2. Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105 3. UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551 4. Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 1 SCC 804 5. Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 731 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that not only the medicine supplied by the petitioner-firm was found to be of substandard quality; but, it was also guilty of short supply. He submits that the petitioner-firm was blacklisted on two counts, i.e. for supply of substandard medicine and short supply of certain medicines. He submits that the petitioner was issued show cause notices specifying therein that unsatisfactory explanation may entail penalty under Clause 49 (5) as also under Clause 16 of the tender conditions. He submits that the petitioner-firm was blacklisted on two counts, i.e. for supply of substandard medicine and short supply of certain medicines. He submits that the petitioner was issued show cause notices specifying therein that unsatisfactory explanation may entail penalty under Clause 49 (5) as also under Clause 16 of the tender conditions. Inviting attention of this Court towards Clause 16(3) of the tender conditions, learned counsel submits that it refers to the penalty of blacklisting and hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that it was not put to specific notice of blacklisting. He submits that in view of admission by the petitioner in the memo of writ petition that there was short supply of medicines, may be for any reason whatsoever and to any minimal extent, even if reply filed by the petitioner was not considered, there was substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Syndicate Bank and Others vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, (2006) 3 SCC 150 , which lays down that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. Learned counsel submits even otherwise also, since, the period of three months for which the petitioner was blacklisted, has already come to an end, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the writ petition. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Vide show cause notice No. 1195-97 dated 17.06.2019, it was alleged that samples of medicine ‘Eladi Gutika’ were found to be of substandard quality by the two laboratories and the penalty under Clause 49 (5) of the tender conditions was proposed. Indisputably, copy of the test reports were not supplied to the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice and the two reports placed alongwith reply by the respondents as Annexure R-1, do not substantiate the allegation. The reply filed by the respondents to the writ petition states that these reports were basis of issuance of show cause notice but, while, as per the report dated 08.12.2017 furnished by State Ayurvedic Drug Testing Laboratory, Uttarakhand, the sample was not of good quality whereas, as per the subsequent report dated 28.02.2018, the sample was found to be of standard quality. Thus, the allegation of the samples being substandard is not substantiated at least from one of the reports relied upon by the respondents themselves. 8. There is another important aspect of the matter. On pointing out technical difficulty by the petitioner in manufacturing of medicine ‘Eladi Gutika’ the supply order itself was cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 27.04.2018 and since the entire lot of this medicine already supplied was returned back by the respondents to the petitioner, as a matter of fact, there was no supply at all. In view thereof, the petitioner could not have been meted with the penalty of blacklisting on account of samples being of substandard quality which, even otherwise also, the respondents have failed to substantiate from the material on record. 9. Further, the impugned order suffers from the vice of noncompliance of the principles of natural justice. Firstly, the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the test reports along with the show cause notice which definitely caused it prejudice, lest it would have been in a better position to refute the allegation. Secondly, the petitioner has responded to the show cause notice albeit with some delay; but, in any case, its reply was before the respondents, as is apparent from Para 3(vii) of their reply, at the time the order impugned dated 02.08.2019 was passed; but, the same was not considered on the premise that it was not received within the prescribed period. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Nayak Construction (supra), while dealing with an identical situation, held as under: “22. But now, the fact that the reply to the show cause notice sent by the appellant was duly received by the second respondent on 21.11.2012, much before the passing of the order impugned on 27.11.2012, yet, the same was not taken into consideration is not in dispute. Obviously, had the factum of receipt of the reply to the show cause notice by the second respondent before the passing of the order impugned, brought to the notice of the court, probably, the conclusion of the learned Singly Judge regarding non observance of the principles of natural justice, would have been different. Obviously, had the factum of receipt of the reply to the show cause notice by the second respondent before the passing of the order impugned, brought to the notice of the court, probably, the conclusion of the learned Singly Judge regarding non observance of the principles of natural justice, would have been different. We are firmly of the view that the respondents in not disclosing the fact regarding the receipt of the reply to the show cause notice sent by the appellant before passing of the order of blacklisting, have indulged in suppression and concealment of material fact, which deserves to be deprecated. 23. Coming to the stand of the respondents that the reply to the show cause notice though received before passing of the order by the second respondent, the same was not required to be considered while passing the order of blacklisting inasmuch as it was not received within the stipulated period, it is true that the provisions of Para VIII contemplates that notice to show cause of 15 days shall be given to the contractor before taking the action for blacklisting but the same does not lead to the inference that in case, the contractor fails to file the reply within two weeks, no further time can be granted to him by the Enlisting Authority for filing the reply. Moreover, in the instant case, the notice dated 1.1.2012, was dispatched by the second respondent on 2.11.2012, which according to the appellant it was received on 5.11.2012 and a reply thereto was dispatched on 13.11.2012. Again the respondents in reply to the application filed by the respondent have disclosed that the reply sent was received in Inward Section of the office of Chief Engineer, Jaipur on 21.11.2012 but have not disclosed as to when the reply sent by the appellant was actually delivered by the courier to the office of the Chief Engineer, Jaipur. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the reply was duly received by the second respondent before passing the order impugned, then, there was absolutely no reason as to why the second respondent has not considered the stand of the appellant before passing the order blacklisting the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the reply was duly received by the second respondent before passing the order impugned, then, there was absolutely no reason as to why the second respondent has not considered the stand of the appellant before passing the order blacklisting the petitioner. Obviously, under Rule VIII, which provides for giving 15 days show cause notice to the contractor, the number of days within which the reply is to be filed is not that sacrosanct that on failure to file reply within the stipulated period, the same cannot be taken into consideration rather, the principle underlying the Rule VIII.4 mandating grant of fair opportunity to the contractor to defend the allegations against him is sacrosanct, which is required to be strictly adhered to. 24. In view of the discussion above, we are firmly of the opinion that the second respondent could not have passed the order, ignoring the reply filed by the appellant solely on the ground that it was not received within the stipulated period. To say the least, the action of the second respondent in passing the order impugned without considering the reply filed on behalf of the appellant amounts to denying the fair opportunity of hearing to the contractor as envisaged under Rule VIII of the Rules and is ex-facie violative of elementary principle of natural justice and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.” 11. Thus, the order dated 02.08.2019 imposing the penalty of blacklisting cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment. 12. However, contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 02.08.2019 is bad in law inasmuch as show-cause notice no. 1195-97 dated 17.06.2019 did not specifically provide for the penalty of blacklisting, cannot be countenanced as it proposed the penalty under Clause 49 (5) of the tender conditions which provided for penalty of blacklisting only. Similarly, this Court is not impressed with the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in view of guidelines dated 04.04.2018, the penalty of blacklisting is highly disproportionate to the error found. This Court has no hesitation in holding that supply of substandard medicine could warrant the penalty of blacklisting. 13. Similarly, this Court is not impressed with the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in view of guidelines dated 04.04.2018, the penalty of blacklisting is highly disproportionate to the error found. This Court has no hesitation in holding that supply of substandard medicine could warrant the penalty of blacklisting. 13. The petitioner has not only been blacklisted vide office order No. 1684-94 dated 02.08.2019; but, vide office order dated even bearing No. 1662-72, it has also been blacklisted for short supply of certain medicines. Corresponding show cause notice No. 1192-94 dated 17.06.2019 proposes a penalty under Clause 16 of the tender conditions. Admittedly, clause 16 provides three penalties; forfeiture of security amount/10% liquidated damages, purchase of subject medicines from the market at the risk and cost of the bidder and blacklisting/debarment for a maximum period of three years. It is trite law that in case a clause in the agreement refers to more than one penalty including the penalty of blacklisting, the penalty of blacklisting cannot be imposed unless specified in the show cause notice. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Gorkha Security Services (supra), UMC Technologies Private Ltd. (supra), Vetindia Pharmaceutical Limited (supra) and Kulja Industries Limited (supra). Since, in the show-cause notice No. 1192-94 dated 17.06.2019, the penalty of blacklisting was not specified as provided under Clause 16(3) of the tender conditions, the office order impugned No. 1662-72 dated 02.08.2019 based thereupon cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. 14. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that even if there is violation of principles of natural justice, in view of admission by the petitioner in the memo of the writ petition as to short supply, the relief prayed for cannot be granted, does not merit acceptance as this Court has, as already observed, not sustained the order of blacklisting on account of short supply of medicines for other reason. Similarly, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the period for which the firm was blacklisted has already expired, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the writ petition, cannot be countenanced as the order of blacklisting carries stigma with it which does not get wiped out merely by efflux of time. 15. Similarly, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the period for which the firm was blacklisted has already expired, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the writ petition, cannot be countenanced as the order of blacklisting carries stigma with it which does not get wiped out merely by efflux of time. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The office order No. 2164-74 dated 09.10.2019 to the extent it imposes the penalty of blacklisting, is quashed and set aside.