Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) DELAY in filing the review petition is condoned.
(2.) THE application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act is disposed of. This petition seeking review of the judgement dated 18.02.2015 has been filed by the writ petitioner on the premise that subsequent to the decision by Single Bench, he has acquired certain documents from the respondents under Right to Information Act showing that in effect the order impugned debars the petitioner from participating in their work for two years and also has the effect of black listing it, which has been done without any notice to the petitioner. Petitioner assailed the judgement passed by the single bench before the division bench. The division bench upheld the judgement in so far as challenge to the order of debarment for two years dated 4.3.2014 was repelled by the Single Bench, but this argument was raised before the division bench that the petitioner stands black listed for two years and that this is evident from the subsequently acquired documents that this was done without opportunity of hearing to him. The division bench while upholding the judgement of Single Bench impugned before it, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to appellant to file appropriate review petition on that limited ground.
(3.) SHRI Sudhanshu Kasliwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the respondents was to debar the petitioner from participating in their tenders for two years, whereas the effect of the order is that the petitioner has been taken as black listed by other bodies in different States. In order to bring home his point, learned senior counsel has referred to the order passed by such bodies to show that his empanelment/approval rates has been cancelled by such bodies in other States. Learned senior counsel submits that the show cause notice dated 7.11.2013 was a mere eye wash as it appears from the note sheet, which petitioner has acquired later that decision to forfeit its bids, debarring it from participating in future bids for two years was already taken. Reference is made to note 178, which has been approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondents at note 180. Learned senior counsel also referred that the show cause notice that was served on the petitioner on 19.9.2014 was enough to debar the petitioner from participating in the tender proceedings of the respondents for two years and accordingly the petitioner submitted reply to such show cause notice on 30.10.2014 explaining their stand. The show cause notice was never meant to blacklist the petitioner and, therefore, the order of debarment cannot be construed as an order of blacklisting, is the argument of learned senior counsel.;