Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The writ petition and the application for vacating of the interim order made therein have been taken up for final hearing. The writ petitioner came to Court challenging the cancellation of the participation of the petitioner in a tender process initiated by A.A.I. in respect of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport at Kolkata.
(2.) The writ petitioner has also assailed the Order of debarment of the first petitioner as contained in the writing dated January 8, 2019 issued by the respondent No. 4.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner participated in a tender for collection of parking fees at Lal Bahadur Shastri International Airport, Varanasi. The petitioner was awarded the contract. A licence agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Airports Authority of India (A.A.I.) on July 4, 2016. The licence agreement was for a period of three years. However, after the petitioner commencing the work, A.A.I. Varanasi unilaterally increased the entry fees. With such unilateral increase, the business became unviable. The petitioner applied for foreclosure of the licence agreement on July 18, 2017. Such licence agreement was foreclosed on July 24, 2017. A.A.I. Varanasi issued a No Due Certificate on August 1, 2017. He has referred to the showcause notice leading up to the Order of the debarment. He has submitted that, the show-cause notice dated October 29, 2018 relates to deposit of a Bank Guarantee of the amount of Rs. 12, 48, 832/-. The show-cause notice required the petitioner to reply within seven days thereof as to whether the penalty/debarring action should be initiated against the petitioner or not. He has submitted that, the petitioner filed a reply thereto on November 5, 2018. Thereafter, A.A.I. issued the impugned notice of debarment dated January 8, 2019 without initiating any proceeding for penalty/debarring action as stated in the show-cause notice dated October 29, 2018. Consequently, the petitioner was not heard in a proceeding for imposing penalty/debarring action. The show-cause notice cannot lead to the decision of debarment as sought to be taken by A.A.I. on January 8, 2019. According to him, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. He has relied upon (Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 1975 1 SCC 70) and (Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Anr., 1994 Supp2 SCC 699) in support of the contention that, when, there is a breach of principles of natural justice, then, the decision arrived at stands vitiated. Moreover, according to him, A.A.I. exceeded the charges framed in passing the impugned order of debarment. He has relied upon (Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen, 1964 3 SCR 616) in support of such contention.;