Non-supply of material forming the genesis of a debarment order violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the decision-making process.

The Petitioner was awarded a contract in 2007 by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to construct 246 residential flats in Mukherjee Nagar, completed in 2010

By 2012, the structures showed severe distress, including structural cracks and corrosion

Expert audits by NCCBM (2019) and IIT Delhi (2022) concluded the buildings were structurally compromised beyond economic repair, leading to evacuation and demolition orders

Following a Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2024, the DDA issued an order on 02.09.2025 debarring the Petitioner from future tenders

The Petitioner challenged this order, alleging violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of critical structural designs and lack of a personal hearing

1. Whether the debarment order was vitiated by the non-supply of original structural designs/drawings relied upon in the expert reports

2. Whether the failure to grant a personal hearing and the imposition of a perpetual debarment rendered the administrative action unlawful

The Court applied the principles of natural justice regarding the right to a fair hearing and the "prejudice test" established in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, which holds that a procedural lapse vitiates an order if it impairs the party’s ability to defend themselves

It further relied on Kulja Industries Limited v. BSNL, which governs the guidelines for blacklisting/debarment

The court also noted the limits of judicial review under Article 226, emphasizing that the court examines the decision-making process rather than acting as an appellate authority on merits

The Court found that the DDA’s debarment order relied significantly on the IIT Delhi report by Prof. Shashank Bishnoi

This report, in turn, was based on structural drawings and designs shared by the DDA

The court reasoned that since the Petitioner argued the construction followed the DDA’s design, the non-supply of these specific designs—which formed the "genesis" of the adverse findings—constituted "sufficient prejudice"

Without access to the material used by the expert to find fault, the Petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend its actions

Consequently, the decision-making process was found to be procedurally flawed regardless of the technical merits of the structural failure

The DDA was granted liberty to take a fresh decision after supplying all materials shared with Prof. Shashank Bishnoi to the Petitioner and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The fresh decision must be taken within two months. The petition was disposed of accordingly