JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. Heard the parties. PRAYER 2. Petitioner, a Limited Company, through its authorized signatory has knocked door of this Court against the order of blacklisting for a period of five years and imposition of penalty of Rs.9,11,63,250/-, issued vide order as contained in Memo No. 614/2024, dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure-21). Further prayer has been made for quashing the report dated 07.04.2023 (Annexure-8), limited to the extent that its finding with respect to (i) management of record (ii) greasing (iii) testing of shaft (iv) mobility of transitioning devices and (v) training of its personnel, as the findings are unscientific and contrary to the records and arrived at in complete violation of principles of natural justice. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. As per the factual matrix, petitioner, a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, is engaged in operation and maintenance of Ropeways with experience of more than fifty years in constructing highest number of passenger ropeways and is operating highest number of ropeways. Petitioner has constructed several Ropeways in India including Vaishno Devi, Hirakund, Guwahati, Tawang, Digha, Kolkata, Naina Devi – Himachal Pradesh, Chitrakoot, Maihar, Jammu, Nandankanan – Bhubaneswar, Udaipur, Namchi, Dewas, Pushkar, Auli and Gangtok. 4. A detailed Project Report was prepared by the RITES Limited with an estimated cost of Rs.6,14,00,000/-. After approval, budgetary allocation was made and an agreement was signed between RITES and the respondent no. 2 for construction of Ropeway at ‘Trikut Parvat’. Thereafter, the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner for the construction of Ropeway. The Project was completed on 21.07.2009 and was handed over to RITES who then handed it over to the State. the Technical Committee conducted detailed inspection of the site and was found fit in all aspects and thereafter, the Project was made operational vide Resolution bearing number 1976, dated 21.08.2009. The Ropeway was operated by the petitioner till 21.01.2010 i.e. for a period of six months only and thereafter, a tender was floated by the respondent no. 1 for operation and management of passenger ropeways. In the said tender, petitioner emerged as a successful party and was awarded the contract for operation and maintenance of the ropeway. In the year 2014, petitioner again qualified in the second tender and entered into a contract dated 28.05.2014 with the respondent no. 1 for operation and management of passenger ropeways. In the said tender, petitioner emerged as a successful party and was awarded the contract for operation and maintenance of the ropeway. In the year 2014, petitioner again qualified in the second tender and entered into a contract dated 28.05.2014 with the respondent no. 2 to operate and maintain passenger ropeway which was valid for a period of five years i.e. till 15.05.2019 with a clause of extension for another two terms of five years each. Petitioner continued to deposit royalty and agreement continued, which is evident from the letter of the respondent no. 2 bearing number DRIL/2021-22/695, dated 28.02.2022. The parties were acting in accordance with contract and petitioner was vigilant and continued to undertake the required tests as per prevalent norms. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that on 10.04.2022, an unfortunate incident took place at the ropeway site of ‘Trikut Parwat’ where the shaft of the ropeway broke owing to which ropeway was stuck and one passenger car plummeted to the ground. Thereafter, all the steps were taken to bring back the stranded passengers to the nearest station. Rescue operation was stopped due to unavailability of sunlight and the next day morning i.e. on 11.04.2022, the district administration arranged the helicopters for safe rescue of left over stranded passengers. One passenger was declared dead at the hospital on 11.04.2022 whereas two passengers lost their lives during joint rescue operation being performed by the team members of Indian Airforce and NDRF. 6. After the incident, petitioner released a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the family members of each of the three deceased persons, total being Rs.75,00,000/-. However, pursuant to the letter number 286/2022, dated 13.04.2022, order of ‘status quo’ was issued and as such no repair, maintenance or construction was allowed to be done. An inquiry committee was constituted for finding out the reasons behind the fatal incident. According to the team from Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, acting at the behest of Technical Committee, the main cause of the incident was ‘entrapment of hydrogen’ in the shaft. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that a suo motu Public Interest Litigation was heard by Hon’ble Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1663 of 2022 wherein petitioner was not a party but the respondents have portrayed that main cause of accident was attributable to the petitioner. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that a suo motu Public Interest Litigation was heard by Hon’ble Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1663 of 2022 wherein petitioner was not a party but the respondents have portrayed that main cause of accident was attributable to the petitioner. Thereafter, a show-cause notice being 426/2023, dated 04.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied vide letter dated 22.05.2023 clearly stating therein that the inquiry team itself has found that the shaft did not suffer any damage at the time of procurement. The fracture analysis revealed that the fracture occurred due to high concentration of hydrogen, which had developed at the time of manufacturing itself. The defect was of the rarest category and the accident was beyond control of operation and maintenance person. The annual testing of the shafts was done by NABL accredited labs and no anomaly was detected during the tests conducted in the year 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2021. 8. It is further case of the petitioner that a pre-meditated notice being 102/2024, dated 31.01.2024 was sent to the petitioner wherein it was stated that a sum of Rs.9,11,63,250/- was payable on account of damages. The respondent no. 2 sought a sum of Rs.3,29,40,000/- on account of lease rent (royalty) payable from 16.05.2021 to 15.05.2024; sum of Rs.82,33,250/- on account of charges of rescue by Air Force; a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- on account of cost towards repair without any working of cost estimation. The said notice was also replied by the petitioner-Company vide its letter dated 09.02.2024 stating therein that the accident was not attributable to the petitioner-Company and further the imposition of charges were not proper. 9. Another notice dated 31.01.2024 was issued to the petitioner questioning therein regarding (i) greasing (ii) tensioning arrangements (iii) non-compliance of PMP (Preventive Maintenance Plan) format as per code and (iv) training of manpower. This notice was also duly replied vide letter dated 09.02.2024 denying the allegations levelled against them. 10. Petitioner was shocked and surprised to come to know from the newspaper report wherein it was mentioned that respondent no. 2 had taken a decision to blacklist the Company and further penalty to the tune of Rs.9,11,63,250/- was imposed without any notice or opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, petitioner approached before the respondents vide letter dated 18.06.2024 requesting therein to provide an opportunity of being heard. 2 had taken a decision to blacklist the Company and further penalty to the tune of Rs.9,11,63,250/- was imposed without any notice or opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, petitioner approached before the respondents vide letter dated 18.06.2024 requesting therein to provide an opportunity of being heard. An order issued vide memo no. 614/2024, dated 24.06.2024 was communicated on the email of the petitioner on 26.06.2024 informing that petitioner had been blacklisted for a period of five years and a penalty of Rs.9,11,63,250/- had been imposed. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-COMPANY 11. Mr. Prashant Pallav assisted by Mr. Parth Jalan, Ms. Shivani Jhaluka and Mr. Bajrang Kumar, learned counsels argues that petitioner is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and is a leader in the field of operation and maintenance of Ropeways since last 50 (fifty) years. Learned counsel further argues that the basic mandate of law has not been followed by the Respondents at the stage of Enquiry as well as the decision-making process. Action of the respondents is an example of gross illegalities at the stage of the decision-making process which led to the petitioner being blacklisted for a period of 5 (five) years. 12. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel argues that the respondent has proceeded on the basis that in case if an accident has occurred, then some person has to be held responsible. The easiest way is to blame the O&M operator. The Respondent has conveniently chosen to ignore that an accident can take place inevitably without the fault being attributed to anyone. The ‘doctrine of inevitable accident’ is recognized by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/s Mcdowell and Company Limited reported in (2022) 6 SCC 223 at page 274. Quoting para 80 and 81, learned counsel submits that petitioner has unnecessarily been punished. The para-80 and 81 of the said Judgment reads as under: “80. The submissions before this Court on behalf of the respondent Company had been that the company had taken all precautions which was expected of it and yet if the fire incident took place, it was something beyond human control for which the respondent Company cannot be held liable. The para-80 and 81 of the said Judgment reads as under: “80. The submissions before this Court on behalf of the respondent Company had been that the company had taken all precautions which was expected of it and yet if the fire incident took place, it was something beyond human control for which the respondent Company cannot be held liable. This line of submission, at best, could be taken into another exception to the rules governing liability, where inevitable accident is generally recognised as a ground of exception. This line of submission, at best, could be taken into another exception to the rules governing liability, where inevitable accident is generally recognised as a ground of exception. Again, we may refer to the principles stated by Salmond [12th Edn., p. 399.] thus: “Accident, like mistake, is either culpable or inevitable. It is culpable when due to negligence, but inevitable when the avoidance of it would have required a degree of care exceeding the standard demanded by the law. Culpable accident is no defence, save in those exceptional cases in which wrongful intent is the exclusive and necessary ground of liability. Inevitable accident is commonly a good defence, both in the civil and in the criminal law. 81. To accept the case of the respondent Company about it being an “inevitable accident”, it is to be seen if preventing of the fire in question would have required a degree of care from the respondent Company beyond or exceeding the standard demanded by law. … … … 13. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner-Company is engaged in operation and maintenance of Ropeways and has experience of more than fifty years with experience of constructing highest number of passenger ropeways and is operating highest number of ropeways. Petitioner had taken all care and precaution and had gone beyond the requirement of the Code and the agreement to ensure safety of the passengers. It is an admitted fact that the reason behind the accident i.e. failure of the shaft occurred due to the hydrogen entrapment at the stage of manufacturing of the steel. This is a rarest defect, which was beyond the control of the petitioner-Company. The detection of the same could not be done despite repeated tests by NABL accredited labs which is recognized by the Government. This is a rarest defect, which was beyond the control of the petitioner-Company. The detection of the same could not be done despite repeated tests by NABL accredited labs which is recognized by the Government. The remaining ancillary reasons have not led to the accident and the finding returned are also contrary to the records of the case. The entire purpose and the action of blacklisting was to justify themselves before the Court of Justice and, therefore, the petitioner-Company has been made a scapegoat. It is also the reason that the most basic principles of natural justice, fairness, reasonableness and equality, which are required to be followed so diligently in cases of blacklisting have been ignored. 14. The main cause of the incident was ‘entrapment of hydrogen’ in the shaft at the stage of manufacturing itself. This defect had occurred during the time of manufacturing of raw material i.e. steel itself and despite regular and repeated tests, the same could not be detected. Learned counsel further argues that such defect is of rarest category and arose at the stage of manufacturing of the raw material itself and as such petitioner-Company could not be held responsible for the same. There was regular annual testing done by NABL accredited labs and no anomaly was ever detected during such tests. Learned counsel further argues that after COVID-19, the petitioner-Company promptly arranged for the shaft to be tested before it resumed operation after COVID-19. 15. Relying upon the Judgment rendered in the case of Gorkha Security Services V. Government (NCT of Delhi) & others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , learned counsel argues that action of the respondents is in teeth of the Judgment as it has clearly been held that no order of blacklisting can be passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 16. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel further argues that the basic mandate of law has not been followed by the respondents at the stage of the Enquiry and the Decision-making process. There are improprieties at the stage of enquiry and the gross illegalities at the stage of the decision-making process which lead to the petitioner-Company being blacklisted for a period of 5 (five) years. There are improprieties at the stage of enquiry and the gross illegalities at the stage of the decision-making process which lead to the petitioner-Company being blacklisted for a period of 5 (five) years. Pointing out the improprieties, learned counsel submits that action of the JTDC based on the Enquiry Report, submitted by the Enquiry Committee constituted by the State, suffers from vice of arbitrariness, illegality and procedural impropriety as the said report was never submitted by the State authorities nor it was approved by the State authorities. The said report was never accepted by the State, however, was accepted by JTDC which is a separate juristic entity and as such the entire enquiry suffers from procedural impropriety, no order of blacklisting could have been passed on the basis of the same. This shows the apparent biasness, haste and pre-meditated mindset of the Respondent. 17. Learned counsel further argues that the Enquiry Committee cannot defer from the finding of the expert committee which was constituted by the Enquiry Committee considering the technical issue involve in the case. The 5 (five) members committee appointed an independent expert body i.e. CSIR-CMERI to find the cause behind the accident. The CSIR-CMERI, on the basis of a detailed study, returned a finding that the reason behind the accident was hydrogen entrapment which took place at the stage of manufacturing of steel (i.e. the raw material for the manufacturing of the shaft) and was beyond the control of the operation and maintenance personnel. It was also stated that the accident was of the rarest category. However, the Enquiry Committee, went beyond the report of CSIR-CMERI and assigned vague reasons such as issues of greasing, tensioning arrange and non-compliance with the format of the Preventive Maintenance Plan and Preventive Maintenance Schedule. Once the Enquiry Committee found conclusively on basis of reports of independent experts, that the accident was beyond the control of the O&M operator (i.e the Petitioner-Company), they indulged in the exercise of finding ancillary and vague reasons to make the Petitioner-Company a scapegoat. This amounts to witch hunting on part of the Respondent No. 2. Such deference from the finding of the expert committee, without any cogent reasons and holding the petitioner accountable, shows arbitrariness on part of the Respondent. The petitioner was not provided the opportunity of being heard, during the stage of Enquiry. This amounts to witch hunting on part of the Respondent No. 2. Such deference from the finding of the expert committee, without any cogent reasons and holding the petitioner accountable, shows arbitrariness on part of the Respondent. The petitioner was not provided the opportunity of being heard, during the stage of Enquiry. The Enquiry Committee in its report has gone beyond its mandate and attributed reasons to the petitioner-Company. In doing so, the Petitioner-Company was not afforded any opportunity of being heard. No notices were issued to the Petitioner by the Committee which has been admitted by the Respondent in Para-26 of their counter-affidavit, relevant portion thereof reads as under: “In this context, it is stated that there is no requirement under law to involve the Petitioner an/or to grant opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner by the said fact finding committee”. 18. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has been running and operating the ropeway since 2009. It was well aware about the technical aspects of the ropeway and accordingly should have been given an opportunity of being heard, where such technicalities are involved. Moreso, the Enquiry Committee, in the garb of finding out the reasons of the accident has essentially attributed reasons adverse to the Petitioner-Company and as such the Respondent ought to have adhered to the principles of audi alterum partum, before returning any adverse finding as against the Petitioner. 19. Referring to different clauses at Pages-213 and 214 of the report, learned counsel submits that the Managing Director has not given any independent finding rather he has relied upon the enquiry report which was prepared without considering reply of the petitioner-Company and without hearing them, the impugned order has been passed which is not tenable and fit to be quashed and set aside. From perusal of impugned order itself it would be apparent that the same has been passed without application of mind. Several irregularities have been pointed out in the report and it has been submitted that the deadlock of the show-cause was the enquiry report and no show-cause was issued during the course of enquiry while coming to the finding against the petitioner. The three show-cause notices were issued without considering the reply. 20. The Petitioner-Company was not able to clarify the same to the enquiry committee as no opportunity was given to it. The three show-cause notices were issued without considering the reply. 20. The Petitioner-Company was not able to clarify the same to the enquiry committee as no opportunity was given to it. Owing to the failure of adhering to the principles of natural justice, the findings so returned by it caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner-Company. The opportunity of being heard was mandatory requirement owing to the ground that enquiry committee not only returned findings on fact but also attributed the cause behind them to the Petitioner. Moreover, the report was the basis on which the entire reply of the Petitioner was negated by the decision-making authority. The above facts show the finding of the Enquiry Committee with respect to (i) greasing, (ii) tensioning arrangement and (iii) manpower is not only contrary to the records (and therefore perverse) but also violates the principle of natural justice and as such is fit to be set aside. Consequently, the order of backlisting, which is based solely on the Enquiry Report is also liable to be quashed. 21. Learned counsel argues that the enquiry committee dated 07.04.2023 is liable to be set aside as the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as petitioner was not given any opportunity at the stage of enquiry by the expert committee. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order of blacklisting for a period of five years and imposition of penalty of Rs.9,11,63,250/- contained in Memo NO. 614/2024 dated 24.06.2024, has been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that the report of the expert committee dated 07.04.2023 is incorrect and suffers from vice of perversity with respect to its findings on (i) management of record (ii) greasing (iii) testing of shaft (iv) mobility of transitioning devices and (v) training of its personnel. 22. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Judgments, which are as follows: (i) Rail Engineering Works Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generati9on and Distribution Corporation Limited and Others reported in MANU/TN/2639/2022; (ii) Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager W.T. Proj BSNL and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 ; (iii) Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in (2020) 18 SCC 550 ; (iv) UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generati9on and Distribution Corporation Limited and Others reported in MANU/TN/2639/2022; (ii) Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager W.T. Proj BSNL and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 ; (iii) Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in (2020) 18 SCC 550 ; (iv) UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India & others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 552. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 23. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel representing Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited argues that in terms of Clauses of the Agreement, petitioner was required to carry out operation and maintenance of all constituent parts of the ropeway and it is an admitted fact as per para-7(q)(2) of the writ petition filed by the petitioner that a new shaft was replaced with the old one by the petitioner-Company in the year 2016. The said shaft was manufactured by M/s. NMW India(P) Limited. As per clause 7(n) of the agreement, petitioner was required to carry out Ultrasonic Testing (NDT) for all critical components annually of the ropeway. Learned counsel submits that the incident took place on 10.04.2022 due to failure/breaking of return shaft during operation. The failure/breaking of shaft caused the bull wheel to shift from its position and impacted the existing front structure. It resulted into dislocation of the rope from the return bull wheel. As the disk was dislocated, at the same time a cabin leaving the return station was unable to grip/catch at the UTP Station’s end point, which resulted in fall of the cabin to ground due to which one person died and another was seriously injured. The rescue operation was performed by the help of District Administration, Indian Air Force, National Disaster Rescue Force, Indian Tibet Border Police, Indian Army and the local people. The admitted position is that the accident took place due to breakage of shaft and the reason for breakage of shaft was entrapment of hydrogen at the stage of manufacturing of shaft. 24. Learned counsel further argues that after the accident, the Expert Committee was constituted by the Department of Tourism, Art, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, vide Notification No. 25, dated 19.04.2022 to determine cause of accident with the help of experts/specialized institutions across the country. 24. Learned counsel further argues that after the accident, the Expert Committee was constituted by the Department of Tourism, Art, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, vide Notification No. 25, dated 19.04.2022 to determine cause of accident with the help of experts/specialized institutions across the country. The CSIR in its report has opined that during manufacturing of shaft, hydrogen got entrapped in the steel of shaft. Hydrogen has a tendency to get entrapped during manufacturing stage of the shaft and is generally removed by vaccum degassing. Such entrapment of hydrogen at the manufacturing stage of shaft being a flaw in the component should have been detected using more sensitive NDT Equipment i.e. Ultrasonic Testing Equipment. Learned counsel further argues that on the basis of report of CSIR and other agencies, the Expert Committee came to the conclusion that cause of accident was failure/breaking of return shaft during operation. Learned counsel gives emphasis towards the various reports and submits that there is total laches on part of the petitioner-Company and as such the impugned order needs no interference. 25. Learned counsel argues that there is no requirement in law to give any opportunity of hearing at the stage of enquiry being conducted by the expert committee. The expert committee was constituted for enquiring into the cause which led to the accident. The said enquiry committee was an independent enquiry committee and was not directed against the petitioner-Company rather it was constituted to enquire into the cause of accident. The experts of the committee reported that there was manufacturing defect in the shaft which was replaced by the petitioner-Company in the year 2016, in terms of the Agreement, as a part of operation and maintenance activity. After the investigation committee report, petitioner-Company was specifically confronted with the report of the Committee and was directed to give its comments/written explanation to the findings of the investigating report. There was no violation of principles of natural justice and there is no requirement in law to give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the stage of independent investigation of the cause of accident. 26. Learned counsel further argues that after report of the Committee, show-cause notice vide letter no. There was no violation of principles of natural justice and there is no requirement in law to give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the stage of independent investigation of the cause of accident. 26. Learned counsel further argues that after report of the Committee, show-cause notice vide letter no. 426/2023, dated 04.05.2023 was issued to the petitioner-Company to show-cause as to why it be not penalized/blacklisted and as to why the agreement be not terminated, which was replied vide letter dated 22.05.2023. Petitioner-Company, according to its own convenience, has tried to make out a case that the entrapment of hydrogen content in the steel from which shaft was manufactured, was beyond its purview as it was concerned with the operation and maintenance of the ropeway only. Another notice vide letter no. 103/2024, dated 31.01.2024 was issued to the petitioner-Company wherein it was informed that the reply filed by the Company was not found satisfactory and as such it was directed to explain as to why it should not be blacklisted on account of receipt of unsatisfactory clarification. The same was replied by the petitioner-Company vide letter dated 09.02.2024 primarily contending that the fault lied at the manufacturing end of the shaft and petitioner-Company was not responsible for the same. Petitioner was thereafter again issued notice vide letter no. 102/2021, dated 31.01.2024, asking therein as to why the losses suffered to JTDC on account of Lease Rent, Charges for Air Rescue by the Indian Air Force and the Estimated expenses for repair and maintenance of the ropeway to make it re-operational, be not recovered from the Company. This show-cause was replied by the petitioner-Company vide letter dated 09.02.2024. When reply of the petitioner-Company was not found satisfactory, the impugned order was passed and the same need no interference. Petitioner-Company has not been able to prove as to how the findings of the expert committee was perverse. 27. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following Judgments: (i) Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles alias Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 494 (ii) State of Odisha and others Vs. Panda Infraproject Limited and another analogous case reported in (2022) 4 SCC 393 ; ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE 28. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to learned Advocate General opposes the contention of Mr. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 494 (ii) State of Odisha and others Vs. Panda Infraproject Limited and another analogous case reported in (2022) 4 SCC 393 ; ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE 28. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to learned Advocate General opposes the contention of Mr. Prashant Pallav regarding different reports and further submits that there is only one report i.e. the report regarding greasing and report regarding shaft by two independent agencies and both are two different components. Learned counsel further adopts the arguments advanced by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel representing respondent no. 2 and justifies the impugned order. The loss to the life and property is serious issue and the agency involved cannot be left scot free on the ground that it was a rarest of the rare accident and could have happened due to technical lapses. Such an excuse cannot be accepted in view of reports and involvement of the Petitioner-Company cannot be overlooked. The serious issue of laches on part of Petitioner-Company resulted into serious injuries and death of innocent people. Learned counsel submits that there is no illegalities or any infirmities and as such the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 29. Heard rival submission of the parties across the bar. Before delving deep into the matter, it would be appropriate to examine the important issues involved in the instant writ petition: (I) Whether the impugned order was passed without following the cardinal principles of natural justice? (II) Whether it was incumbent upon the Expert Committee before coming to the finding to hear the petitioner? (III) Whether before passing the impugned order, any adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner? (IV) Whether petitioner can be held responsible and was rightly inflicted punishment in view of the manner in which occurrence took place and the reasons behind the occurrence as per the enquiry report? (V) Whether in view of report of the Expert Committee, petitioner can be directly held responsible for the incident? (VI) Whether the report of the Expert Committee is perverse on the face of it in absence of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? 30. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence took place due to entrapment of hydrogen in the shaft. (VI) Whether the report of the Expert Committee is perverse on the face of it in absence of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? 30. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence took place due to entrapment of hydrogen in the shaft. After the fatal incident which resulted into death and fatal injuries to many people, vide Notification No. 25, dated 09.04.2022, a Committee was constituted by the Department of Tourism, Art, Culture, Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand to inquire into the cause which led to accident on 10.04.2022. The constitution of the Enquiry Committee was to inquire into the cause of the accident and was never prejudiced against the petitioner-Company. A detailed investigation was done and one of the major cause for the accident was found to be breakage of the return shaft. It was reported by the Expert Committee that there was the manufacturing defect in the shaft which was admittedly replaced by the petitioner-Company in the year 2016 in terms of the agreement as a part of its operation and maintenance activity, which is clear from Clause-5 of the Agreement dated 28.05.2014. It would be relevant to quote clause 5 of the said agreement, which reads as under: “5. Scope of operation & maintenance work for the Trikut Ropeway to be undertaken by the Operator/DRIL. (a) The Operator/DRIL shall run, maintain the ropeway system to ensure steady, smooth operation under the supervision of the Owner/JTDCL or his representative. (b) The entire ropeway system including building and complex appurtenant thereto with terminal building will be maintained by Operator/DRIL. (c) The Operator/DRIL shall maintain attendance register of their employees and all employees shall wear uniform with identity Card. (d) The annual maintenance of ropeway systems for about 15 to 20 days may be taken up and the period shall be decided on mutually agreed basis during the lean season. (e) In the annual maintenance all the steel structures and cabins are to be painted before the month of October every year with two coats of paint approved by the Owner/JTDCL (f) The monthly maintenance of ropeway shall be carried out on a fixed date of every month (or) as instructed by the Owner/JTDCL. (g) It shall be the responsibility of the Operator/DRIL to replace all spares including rope and any other material as may be required at his own cost in maintenance of the ropeway. (g) It shall be the responsibility of the Operator/DRIL to replace all spares including rope and any other material as may be required at his own cost in maintenance of the ropeway. All cabins should be maintained periodically. (h) The Operator/DRIL shall engage his own personnel to carry out the operation and maintenance activity with prescribed uniform and DRIL shall provide contributory Provident Fund, ESI Coverage, minimum wages duly complying with the Labour Laws. (i) The maintenance of the equipment is to be carried out in conformity of BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) of Ropeways. (j) The Operator/DRIL should maintain necessary maintenance records, log books and history sheets concerning the various equipment, change of spares and consumables details etc. (k) The Operator/DRIL agrees to comply with all laws, rules and regulations applicable to the nature of work and any reasonable suggestions or instructions issued by the officials of the Owner/JTDCL/Safety Committee. (l) The Operator/DRIL shall maintain the Gen-Set also. (m) The Operator/DRIL shall maintain electrical fixtures in both station buildings. (n) The Operator/DRIL agrees to take insurance policies to all ropeway plant/machinery/equipment/system/passengers/other personnel and meet all labour liabilities & claims during operation & maintenance during the period of agreement. (o) The Operator/DRIL shall provide and maintain First aid facility at site. (p) The Operator/DRIL is entirely responsible for any loss or damage, mishappenings to passengers, Owner/JTDCL plant & machineries due to any deficiency/negligence on the part of the DRIL in operation and maintenance until the plant is taken over by the Owner/JTDCL. (q) The Operator/DRIL agrees to take insurance to cover the ropeway plant & machines. (r) The Operator/DRIL will take passenger insurance also. (s) Operator/DRIL will arrange facilities like ticketing, security, traffic control, Housekeeping, building maintenance etc. during operation & Maintenance period. (t) The expenditure towards maintenance, running of DG sets shall be borne by the DRIL. (u) The Operator/DRIL shall properly maintain the cleanliness of the premises, restaurant building and public amenities/facilities at its own cost. (v) If any tax, levy or duty is imposed by the Central/State Government, the same will be paid by the Operator/DRIL. (w) Operator/DRIL agreed to provide effective communication system between LTP and UTP. (x) To run operate, maintain the restaurant at LTP on is own and to get the required licenses for compliance of the issues relating to operation of the restaurant. (w) Operator/DRIL agreed to provide effective communication system between LTP and UTP. (x) To run operate, maintain the restaurant at LTP on is own and to get the required licenses for compliance of the issues relating to operation of the restaurant. (y) To cooperate the officials of Owner/JTDCL or the safety committee formed by the Owner/JTDCL for inspection of the ropeway system and any equipment used or to be used in operation of the ropeway. (z) To provide complete manning of daily operations and all maintenance shut downs. (aa) To provide consumable like brake oil, gear oil eye, diesel, welding rods, greases, gases for oxy acetylene cutter, ropes and any other consumable for day-to-day maintenance of spares required. 31. From Clauses (g) and (i) hereinabove, it is apparent that it was the responsibility of the Operator/DRIL to replace all spares including rope and any other material as may be required at his own cost in maintenance of the ropeway and all cabins had to be maintained periodically. The maintenance of the equipment was to be carried out in conformity of Bureau of Indian Standards of Ropeways. It is an admitted fact that the Enquiry Committee consisting the experts from the CSIR and other agencies, reported that there was manufacturing defect in the shaft due to entrapment of hydrogen which was present more than the permissible quantity and could have been detected at the time of manufacturing itself. From Clause 6(n) of the said agreement, it is crystal clear that it was responsibility of the Petitioner-Company for carrying out Ultrasonic Testing (NDT) for all critical equipment. Clause 6(n) reads as under: “6. The Operator/DRIL also agreed to perform the work mentioned below: n. Carrying out Ultrasonic Testing (NDT) for all critical components (to be mutually decided with Owner/JTDCL) and Non-destructive Testing for rope with defectograph, annually.” It further appears that the Committee, after examination of reports of Ultrasonic Testing submitted by the petitioner-Company, which was also examined by the experts from CSIR and other agencies, it was opined that such defects in manufacturing of shaft should have been detected in the Ultrasonic Testing reports, which were carried out subsequently by the Petitioner-Company. From the reports, it was found that admittedly there was manufacturing defect in the shaft but even the said manufacturing defect was not detected in subsequent Ultrasonic Testing reports submitted by the petitioner. 32. From the reports, it was found that admittedly there was manufacturing defect in the shaft but even the said manufacturing defect was not detected in subsequent Ultrasonic Testing reports submitted by the petitioner. 32. As regard opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is concerned, a show-cause notice vide letter no. 426/2023, dated 04.05.2023 was issued with respect to the report submitted by the Investigating Committee of the Trikut Ropeway, Deoghar acceded on 10.04.2022. After report of the investigating committee, Petitioner-Company was confronted with the report of the Investigating Committee and was directed to give comments/written explanation to the findings of the investigating report. From the aforesaid, it can comfortably be gathered that the principles of natural justice were duly complied with and proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner-Company. From reply to the show-cause notice letter no. 426/2023, dated 04.05.2023, it can comfortably be inferred that the Petitioner-Company was given ample opportunity to meet specific finding of the investigating committee and also the JSTDC before passing of the impugned order. From the impugned order it appears that due consideration was given to the reply submitted by the Petitioner-Company and thereafter a decision was taken to blacklist the Petitioner-Company for five years. It further appears that the Committee was an independent Committee and independent investigation for coming to the conclusion regarding the cause of accident, it was not required to hear the Petitioner-Company as the same was not directed against the petitioner-Company but was constituted in order to inquire into the cause of accident and as such, contention of Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel that the Investigating Committee did not consider proper to hear the petitioner while coming to the finding, is not acceptable to this Court. 33. Petitioner-Company is also aggrieved by the imposition of penalty and as such whether imposition of penalty is justified or not, has to be looked into. Admittedly, the accident took place due to sheer negligence on part of the Petitioner-Company. Due to the accident, operation of the ropeway has been suspended with effect from 10.04.2022 and the respondent-Corporation is suffering loss of yearly royalty amount. Apart from that, great loss has been caused towards the reputation of the Corporation. The Corporation has further suffered loss towards repair of the Ropeway and to make it operational, loss of lives and loss during operation of rescue system. Apart from that, great loss has been caused towards the reputation of the Corporation. The Corporation has further suffered loss towards repair of the Ropeway and to make it operational, loss of lives and loss during operation of rescue system. As per Clause 6(h), it appears that the Operator/DRIL had agreed to perform the work towards operation of rescue system and its maintenance. Thus, the respondent – Corporation was justified in imposing cost. 34. This Court has to examine whether there is any perversity in the impugned order and whether there is any reappraisal of the evidence. Admittedly, in view of settled principles of law, this Court would not sit in appeal to reappraise the evidence for holding the petitioner guilty, from the independent findings of the investigating committee and after affording ample opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner-Company and giving show-cause reply, this Court is of the view that neither report is perverse nor there is any appraisal of evidences. What has been derived by the investigating committee, the Petitioner-Company cannot be left scot-free in view of the admitted facts that it was the duty and responsibility of the Petitioner-Company to maintain operation in view of terms and conditions of the agreement. Petitioner-Company itself being a manufacturer since the year 2009 and while changing the shaft in the year 2016, was very much aware that the said incident may take place and the petitioner cannot shirk from the responsibility. The shaft which was replaced in the year 2016, was of the inferior quality which led to the accident. The report of Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI) also clearly reveals that the fractured surface had significant curvature from periphery towards centre. It further reveals that no surface flaw could lead to such catastrophic failure and the final fracture occurred from the interior which led to rapid/fast fracture. The entrapped hydrogen was therefore investigated using an CHNS (Carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen-sulphur) analyzer and was found to be 5.62 ppm, which is much higher than the acceptable range of 2-3 ppm. The concentration of hydrogen is responsible to generate flakes within the material. The report says that in the instant case the hydrogen content in the steel was approximately 87% more than the permissible limit. The concentration of hydrogen is responsible to generate flakes within the material. The report says that in the instant case the hydrogen content in the steel was approximately 87% more than the permissible limit. The entrapped hydrogen molecules also produce flaky surfaces which are extremely weak and produces network of cracks (numerous sub-surface cracks, possibly due to generation of a critical stress state by hydrogen trapped at inclusions). Such evidences were seen on the fracture surface. Hydrogen has a tendency to get entrapped during manufacturing stage of the shaft and is generally removed by vacuum degassing. It may be possible that the degassing process was not done appropriately. The report further says that the presence of such flaw in components should have been detected using more sensitive NDT equipment (Ultrasonic equipment). The chances of overlooking such planer defects always remain, if the equipment’s sensitivity does not match as per requirement. The NDT reports (provided by JTDC Officials for 2019 and 2021) did not reveal presence of such planner defects possible due to location or may be due to procedure undertaken (Calibration) by the NDT Personnel, being not fully perfect. It is evident from all the analysis made, that the hydrogen gas got entrapped during manufacturing of the raw material of shaft itself which colluded with large number of inclusions present and created an elliptical flaw in the central region. The elliptical flaw once reached to critical size after certain years of operation thereafter it failed instantaneously. The mobility of the tensioning devises was to be ensured at all times but the same was not complied with. 35. Nowhere it has been disputed by the Petitioner-Company that they were not aware of the enquiry report. It was only after handing over enquiry report and going through the reply, the impugned order was passed. So, it can be inferred that ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and there was no breach of principles of natural justice. From the reply, nowhere it is reflected that the Petitioner-Company had taken the stand that opportunity of hearing was not given by the original enquiry committee. 36. So, it can be inferred that ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and there was no breach of principles of natural justice. From the reply, nowhere it is reflected that the Petitioner-Company had taken the stand that opportunity of hearing was not given by the original enquiry committee. 36. Here it is relevant to quote the findings arrived at by the Expert Committee on the basis of report of CSIR and other agencies, which reads as under: “From the above it can be concluded that the cause of accident of Trikut Ropeway on 10.04.2022 was the failure/breaking of return shaft during operation. The failure/breaking of shaft caused the bull wheel to shift from its position and impacted the existing front structure. It also resulted in the dislocation of the rope from the return bull wheel. As the rope was dislocated, at the same time a cabin leaving the return station (UTP) was unable to grip/catch the rope at the UTP station’s end point, which resulted in fall of the cabin to ground due to which one person died and another was seriously injured. The dislocation of the rope also led to stopping of the Ropeway which resulted in the passengers being stranded in air who had to be evacuated by personnel of Indian Army and Indian Air Force in a span of nearly 2 days. It is to be noted that shaft was tested earlier multiple times. It was tested twice in 2016, once in 2018, once in 2019 and once in 2021 but on any of these five occasions the abnormalities which have been reported by CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur were not reported/detected. The test reports submitted by ID & RL in 2016 and 2018 itself mentions that 100% shaft was not tested.” Thus, the enquiry Committee, on the basis of the report of the experts from the premier institutions of metallurgy of the Government of India, formed an opinion that there was manufacturing defect of the shaft which was admittedly replaced by the petitioner and further, the enquiry committee observed that not only there was manufacturing defect but the said manufacturing defect would not be detected in the Ultrasonic Test Reports submitted by the petitioner as the said Ultrasonic Test Reports were obtained from the institutions which did not deploy more sensitive NDT Equipment (Ultrasonic Equipment) and thus, the chances of overlooking planner defects remained. The said committee also obtained the opinion of M/s. RITES Limited on ‘graphite grease and came to the conclusion as under: In the above reproduced report it is mentioned that Graphite flake content of grease has been observed to be 0.96 against the specified value of minimum 6. The significance of grease lies in its role in reducing friction between the shaft & beatings and inside the bearings. Reduced flake content of the grease may lead to enhanced friction between the shaft & bearings and inside the bearings which may in turn cause enhanced stress on the shaft. This appears to be an operation and maintenance issue.” The said Committee also examined the practice of operation and maintenance undertaken by the Petitioner-Company and in terms of Code of Practice framed by Bureau of Indian Standard, observed as under: “2. Clause 4.1(a) of the Code of Practice for Operation and Maintenance of all types of Ropeways intended for transportation of passengers is 17234:2019 states that “Deployment of trained operating personnel.” Clause 4.2.8 of the Code stages that “Rescue operation should be carried out by trained personnel only and with utmost safety.” The educational qualification of the manpower has not been specified in the Code. Damodar Ropeway & Infra limited has not provided the training details of the personnel who were engaged in the Trikut Ropeway operation. However, from the perusal of the above reproduced document, it appears that most of the maintenance personnel were not adequately qualified. It is pertinent to note that quality of human resources deployed may have an impact on the quality of operation and maintenance of the Ropeway.” 37. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and others Vs. Panda Infraproject Limited and another analogous case reported in (2022) 4 SCC 393 has held that the findings recorded by the inquiry committee can be said to be the basis for initiating the action of blacklisting against the contractor. The findings recorded by the inquiry committee can be said to be a prima facie opinion while initiating the proceedings for blacklisting. Merely because show-cause notice was issued and the blacklisting order was passed on consideration of the inquiry report, that by itself it cannot be said that the blacklisting order was pre-decided. Paragraps-17 to 20 of the said Judgment reads as under: “17. Merely because show-cause notice was issued and the blacklisting order was passed on consideration of the inquiry report, that by itself it cannot be said that the blacklisting order was pre-decided. Paragraps-17 to 20 of the said Judgment reads as under: “17. Merely because the show-cause notice was issued after the inquiry committee report was considered and thereafter the State Government took the decision to initiate proceedings for blacklisting, that by itself cannot be said that the order of blacklisting was pre-determined as observed by the High Court. The communication dated 10-10-2017 by the State Government to the Chief Engineer can be said to be a proposed decision to initiate the proceedings for blacklisting. In the communication dated 10-10-2017, it has been specifically mentioned that the action be taken for blacklisting after following the procedure as per the OPWD Code. 18. Before any show-cause notice is issued for any action when a tentative decision is taken, it cannot be said that subsequent decision followed by a show-cause notice and the proceedings as per the OPWD Code can be said to be pre-determined. Before initiation of any proceedings for blacklisting, there can be a tentative decision on the basis of the material available forming a tentative/prima facie opinion that action is required. 19. In the instant case a committee submitted a detailed report which was the basis for issuance of the show-cause notice to the respondent. The action initiated against the respondent was not in a vacuum but after considering the committee's report and after following the due procedure as required. Therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that the blacklisting order was pre-determined. 20. So far as the findings recorded by the High Court that the blacklisting order was in breach of principles of natural justice is concerned, it is to be noted that the blacklisting order was passed after issuing a show-cause notice to which the respondent contractor was called upon to reply and show cause as to why he be not blacklisted. A detailed show-cause notice was issued with specific allegations to which the respondent contractor submitted a detailed reply. After considering the allegations in the show-cause notice, considering the reply and also by considering the material available on record the order of blacklisting was passed. A detailed show-cause notice was issued with specific allegations to which the respondent contractor submitted a detailed reply. After considering the allegations in the show-cause notice, considering the reply and also by considering the material available on record the order of blacklisting was passed. We fail to appreciate, how in such a case the blacklisting order can be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice. 21. In Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2001) 8 SCC 604 ] , the order of blacklisting was challenged by the contractor on the ground that the contractor was not supplied with all the materials on the basis of which charges against him were based. It was the case on behalf of the contractor that non-supply of such material resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. To that, this Court observed that it was sufficient requirement of law that an opportunity of show cause was given to the appellant before it was blacklisted. This Court observed that the contractor was given an opportunity to show cause and it did reply to the show-cause to the State Government and therefore the procedure adopted by the Government while blacklisting the contractor was in conformity with the principles of natural justice.” 38. The question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the contractor was required to be debarred/blacklisted. In Kulja Industries [Kulja Industries Ltd. V. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731 ], Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “debarment” is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. In the said decision this Court emphasised on prescribing guidelines by determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective. It is observed and held by this Court that while determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective, for the sake of objectivity and transparency it is required to formulate broad guidelines to be followed. It is further observed that different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. The duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. It is further observed that different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. The duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of the lapse and the incident and/or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations. In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor's first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years. However, as the said guidelines are not under challenge, it is upon the State Government to suitably amend and/or modify the said office memorandum. However, the observations made herein can be a guide while determining the period of debarment/blacklisting. 39. In the case of Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles alias Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 494, the matter relating to factual issues has been dealt with. It has been held that the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court should refrain themselves from deeper probe into factual issues like an appellate body unless the inferences made by the concerned authority suffers from perversity on the face of it or are impermissible in the eyes of law. It has been held that the writ of certiorari is expended as a remedy and is intended to cure jurisdictional error, if any, committed by the Courts/forums below. It should not be used by superior Court to substitute its own views by getting into fact-finding exercise unless warranted. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings at any rate, as long as they are based upon such materials which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can be reasonable and possibly undertaken. 40. 40. It appears that three show-cause notices were given to the petitioner i.e. on 04.05.2023 and 31.01.2024 followed by 31.01.2024 regarding financial and other loss to the Corporation in view of Clause – 5 and 6 of the agreement, which has not been denied by the petitioner. 41. In view of backdrop of findings of the investigating committee as well as the reasonings assigned by the respondents and observations made by this Court hereinabove, this Court cannot shut its eyes in considering seriousness of the incident in which due to omission and commission wholly on part of the petitioner-Company, the incident took place causing death, injury, loss to life and property and reputation of the Corporation. The manner in which occurrence took place caused loss to life and property and reputation of the Corporation due to callous and lethargic approach of the petitioner, the impugned order is fully justified and warrants no interference. 42. On thoughtful consideration to submission and after going through the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. The issues framed are inter-related and as such answered accordingly. 43. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of.