JUDGMENT : (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the impugned communication dated 22.08.2023 Annexure P-4 and 18.07.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice.” 2. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by office order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-4), issued by the Engineer-in-Chief Jal Shakti Vibhag, which reads as under:- “In pursuance/compliance of Principal Secretary (JSV) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh letter No.JSV-B(F)-2022 dated 18.08.2023, the firm M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Kolkata is hereby blacklist/debar from participating in the tendering process of D.I. Pipes in Jal Shakti Vibhag Himachal for the next one year. Henceforth no supply orders/pipes shall be placed/procured by the department at any level in favour of the above firm for next one year.” 3. When the case was taken up for consideration today, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-4 was blacklisted for a period of one year and as the said period is over, the impugned office order has lost its efficacy and so also the writ petition, because now the petitioner can participate in any future tender. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue is as to whether the act of blacklisting the petitioner is sustainable in law or not for the reason that though the period of blacklisting is over, but, until this Court decides said issue in favour of the petitioner, the stigma of being declared as a blacklisted contractor shall always be there with the petitioner. 5. The matter was heard at length. The blacklisting of the petitioner is in terms of communication dated 18.08.2023, which is at Page 33 of the paper book and it is relevant to quote the same so as to understand the issue involved in this petition:- “No. JSV-B(F)7-2-2022 From: The Pr. Secretary (JSV) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To The Engineer-in-Chief, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Jal Shakti Bhawan, Tutikandi, Shimla-5. Dated Shimla-171002, the 18/-8/2023. Subject: Representation from M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited. Secretary (JSV) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To The Engineer-in-Chief, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Jal Shakti Bhawan, Tutikandi, Shimla-5. Dated Shimla-171002, the 18/-8/2023. Subject: Representation from M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited. I am directed to refer to your letter No.JSV-SP-I-D.I. Pipes-Vol-27/2023-24:3334 dated 21.06.2022, on the subject cited above and to say that representation of M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., has been examined at Government level, in view of provisions at condition No.32(x) eligibility and blacklisting of the tender document for supply of DI pipes in Jal Shakti Vibhag. It has been gathered that after amendment in condition 32(x) of tender document, M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. has not participated in the fresh tenders process of supply of DI pipes in Jal Shakti Vibhag, thus, the moto of the said company only to hamper the supply of DI pipes during last two years either by filing suits in the Courts or by representation. This action caused delay in procurement of DI pipes and completion of works undertaken in Hon’ble NGT targeted schemes. Therefore, it has been decided to blacklist/debar M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. from participating in the tendering process in Jal Shakti Vibhag, Himachal Pradesh with immediate effect. You are, therefore, requested to take all necessary steps for blacklisting the said firm from participating in the tendering process in Jal Shakti Vibhag, Himachal Pradesh after completing all codal formalities. These instructions may please be brought to the notice of all concerned and the same be uploaded on the official website of the Jal Shakti Vibhag, H.P. Yours faithfully, (Rakesh Sharma) Deputy Secretary (JSV) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 6. A perusal this communication thus demonstrates that Principal Secretary (JSV) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh instructed Engineer-in-Chief, Jal Shakti Vibhag, to take necessary steps for blacklisting the petitioner firm and for debarring it from participating in the tendering process in Jal Shakti Vibhag for the reasons that after amendment in condition Clause 32(x) of tender documents as the petitioner had not participated in the fresh tender process of supply of DI pipes in Jal Shakti Vibhag, therefore, the moto of the company was to hamper the supply of DI pipes during last two years either by filing suits in the Court or by representation. These acts of the petitioner, as per the Principal Secretary, caused delay in procurement of DI pipes and completion of works undertaken in National Green Tribunal targeted scheme. 7. These acts of the petitioner, as per the Principal Secretary, caused delay in procurement of DI pipes and completion of works undertaken in National Green Tribunal targeted scheme. 7. A perusal of the reply filed to the writ petition demonstrates that the reason mentioned therein by the respondents as to why the petitioner was blacklisted are totally alien to the contents of communication dated 18.08.2023. To be more precise, the respondents have taken the stand in their reply that as during the last three years, certain departments and public undertakings in other States had disallowed the use of the DI pipes of the petitioner Company, this demonstrated that the petitioner firm was not fulfilling the condition contemplated in Clause 32(x) of the tender conditions. As per the State, the DI pipes supplied by the petitioner in some other States were found to be of poor quality and as per CBC guidelines, bidders could be debarred/disallowed/blacklisted after adopting a proper procedure. It is further mentioned in the reply that the petitioner was filing frivolous cases and representations and it also filed a false affidavit appended with the reply as Annexure R-4. 8. A Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohinder Singh Gill and another versus The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405, has been pleased to hold that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Para 8 thereof is quoted hereinbelow:- “The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds. Its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji’: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting’s and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow order.” 9. In the present case, the blacklisting of the petitioner was ordered on three counts; (a) that after amendment in condition 32(x) of tender document, the petitioner did not participate in fresh tender; (b) the moto of the company was only to hamper the supply of DI pipes during the last two years by filing suits or by representing; and (c) this was causing delay in procurement of DI pipes and completion of work undertaken in NGT targeting scheme. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the course of arguments, pointed out that earlier when the petitioner participated in two tender processes; the same were not taken to their logical conclusion for the reason that it was the sole bidder, despite the fact that it was declared technically qualified. Thereafter, on one occasion, it was not allowed to participate in the bid process by the respondents themselves. Thereafter, after incorporation of condition of 32(x) in the bid document, the petitioner was rendered ineligible, meaning thereby that it could not have participated in the bid. This could not be disputed by the State. That being the case, it is not understood as to how the non-participation of the petitioner in the fresh tender processes was delaying or hampering the supply of DI pipes, as was the case put forth by Principal Secretary (JSV) to Engineer-in-Chief. This could not be disputed by the State. That being the case, it is not understood as to how the non-participation of the petitioner in the fresh tender processes was delaying or hampering the supply of DI pipes, as was the case put forth by Principal Secretary (JSV) to Engineer-in-Chief. Not only this, this Court fails to understand as to how a person can be blacklisted for espousing its cause in a Court of law or by filing representation. Besides this, what is mentioned in impugned communication is not the stand of the State in the reply filed, as has been observed by me hereinabove and the stand taken therein is totally alien to what is reflected in communication dated 18.08.2023. 11. Therefore, in the light of the above observations, office order dated 22.08.2023, in terms whereof, the petitioner was blacklisted is held to be bad in law for the reason that this Court is of the considered view that an entity like the petitioner could have been blacklisted only had such an entity been offered some contract and the entity had failed to fulfill its obligations, as were mentioned in the terms of the contract, non compliance whereof, could have led to the blacklisting of such an entity. An entity which does not participates in a process at all can by no stretch of imagination be ordered to be blacklisted, because, maximum if such an entity is not eligible to participate in a process, as per condition of tender, it can be held to be ineligible to participate in the process. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Communications dated 22.08.2023 and 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) are quashed and set aside and the blacklisting of the petitioner by the respondents is held to be bad in law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.