2020 and the contract form by November 20, 2020. It is also not in dispute that the first petitioner, within the time stipulated by the bank in the purchase order, did not submit the requisites, not to speak of installing the requisite number of cash dispensers. However, Mr. Kadam has sought to impress upon us that the time granted to the petitioners to install such cash dispensers was too short having regard to the delay in decision making. We are not required to examine this aspect of the matter on this writ petition, particularly when the petitioners have unconditionally chosen to accept the cancellation of the purchase order and forfeiture of the security bid. What we are tasked to decide first is, whether the bank could have debarred the first petitioner permanently from participating in its future processes without issuance of a notice and extending an opportunity to show cause. Obviously, the decisions referred to us by Mr. Kadam in Gorkha Security Services (supra) , Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra) and UMC Technologies Private Limited (supra), which all followed the parent decision of the Supreme Court on the subject, i.e., Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and anr.10 , are authorities for the proposition that no order of debarment/blacklisting, by whatever name called, could be issued without extending to the defaulting bidder an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. What follows from such decisions is
