therefore, automatically follows that when Respondent No. 2 decided to proceed with the impugned action on the basis of the said notice, despite the issue being pending for adjudication before the Arbitration Tribunal, which contention was raised by the Petitioner, but decided to be rejected by Respondent No. 2, then, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent No. 2 to make the Petitioner aware of the said fact and to call upon the Petitioner to reply on merits also. That would have been the proper course of following the principles of natural justice i.e. giving an opportunity of showing the real cause and also a personal hearing to the Petitioner. Instead of doing so, Respondent No. 2 chose to proceed with the further action on the said show cause notice. Respondent No. 2 did not thereafter even called upon the Petitioner to appear in person and to show cause as to why the Petitioner should not be banned from future business dealings with Respondent No. 2 and after one and a half year, proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is having the drastic consequences on the business dealings of the Petitioner, affecting not only its reputation, but also affecting the Petitioner's right to carry on business. It is fairly well settled position of law, as laid down in series of decisions of the Apex Court, one of which relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, namely, that of Kulja Industries Limited (supra), that the touchstone for judicial review of administrative action is fairness, relevance, natural justice, nondiscrimination, equality and proportionality. On this touchstone the impugned action of the Respondent No. 2 cannot be upheld. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 2 has acted in fairness and followed the principles of natural justice of giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be barred from future dealings with Respondent No. 2.
