Non-speaking debarment orders failing to consider a party's defense are arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

The Petitioner, a subsidiary of Intertek Group Plc, provides quality assurance and inspection services

In December 2023, the Petitioner participated in a tender floated by Respondent No. 2 (BHEL) for third-party inspection services

During technical evaluation, BHEL alleged that 37 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) certificates submitted by the Petitioner were forged, based on an email from the purported signatory, Mr. Baldev Patel, denying their issuance

Despite the Petitioner providing extensive evidence—including affidavits from 37 engineers, bank statements showing payments for training, and an affidavit from the proprietor of the training institute (M/s Techniqo Corporation) affirming the certificates' authenticity—BHEL issued an order dated 31.05.2024 debarring the Petitioner for two years

Consequently, Respondent No. 3 (GeM) suspended the Petitioner’s portal account for 365 days, effectively blocking it from all government tenders

The Court relied on the principles of natural justice and the requirement for administrative authorities to pass "speaking orders" containing cogent reasons

It applied the precedent from Mekaster Trading Corporation v. Union of India, which mandates that administrative decisions must disclose the mental process and links between material and conclusions

The Court further cited Diwan Chand Goyal v. NCRTC, establishing that blacklisting is "civil death" and must be proportionate and reasoned

Transys Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI, which held that merely labeling a reply as "unsatisfactory" without substantive reasoning violates natural justice

The Court observed that the Impugned Debarment Order was "cryptic" and lacked any discussion or reasoning regarding how BHEL concluded the certificates were forged

Crucially, the Court found that BHEL completely ignored the substantial evidence furnished by the Petitioner, including 37 affidavits from engineers and the training institute's proprietor

The Court criticized BHEL for relying solely on a "one-sided version" from a trainer (Mr. Baldev Patel) via email without conducting minimal verification or seeking a formal affidavit

Regarding the additional show cause notice, the Court noted that BHEL failed to consider the retraction of the second trainer, Mr. Deepak Kushwaha, who admitted his initial denial was made under duress

The Court concluded that the failure to engage with the Petitioner's defense rendered the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law

It held that the order was a non-speaking one that failed to consider relevant material

Consequently, the Suspension Order dated 29.06.2024 issued by GeM, being consequential in nature and premised on the flawed debarment, was also set aside

The Court directed that the Petitioner’s access to and participation in online tenders through the GeM portal be restored without impediment