Delisting based on speculation and later procurement norms cannot stand when no defect is proved or existing rules are breached.

An administrative delisting action with serious civil consequences must rest on cogent reasons, proved relevant facts and consideration of material such as inspection, certification and acceptance of supplies. Where no defect or non-conformity is demonstrated, reliance on speculation, irrelevant material or conjecture is unsustainable and may attract judicial review on grounds of unreasonableness and disproportionality. A later procurement specification cannot be applied retrospectively to supplies made before it came into force, because a norm not in existence at the relevant time cannot invalidate prior conduct absent breach of then-applicable requirements. The impugned delisting action was quashed and the affected party was entitled to participate in the tenders.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the delisting order was sustainable in the absence of cogent reasons and when it rested on speculation, irrelevant material and no demonstrated quality deficiency; (ii) whether the respondents could apply a later procurement specification retrospectively to supplies made before that specification came into force.

Issue (i): whether the delisting order was sustainable in the absence of cogent reasons and when it rested on speculation, irrelevant material and no demonstrated quality deficiency.

Analysis: The order of delisting had serious civil consequences and therefore required a factual foundation and reasoned decision-making. The materials before the Court showed no recorded complaint of defect, no proven deviation from specifications, and no finding that the supplies were non-conforming. The impugned order proceeded on conjecture that the alleged job-work arrangement may lead to quality issues, which was not enough to justify exclusion from approved vendor status. The decision also ignored relevant material such as inspection, certification, acceptance and actual use of the supplies. This amounted to reliance on extraneous considerations, failure to consider relevant factors and a decision that fell within the traditional grounds of judicial review, including Wednesbury unreasonableness and disproportionality.

Conclusion: The delisting order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed, in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the respondents could apply a later procurement specification retrospectively to supplies made before that specification came into force.

Analysis: The record showed that the prohibition on job-work was introduced only from 1 January 2021, while the supplies in question related to an earlier period. Applying the later specification to earlier supplies was legally impermissible, especially when the impugned action treated the later norm as if it governed past transactions. A standard that did not exist at the relevant time could not be used to invalidate prior conduct in the absence of any contemporaneous breach of the then-applicable requirements.

Conclusion: Retrospective application of the later specification was impermissible, in favour of the Petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned delisting action was quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to participate in the relevant tenders.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative order imposing exclusionary consequences must rest on proved relevant facts and existing applicable standards, and cannot be sustained on speculation, irrelevant considerations or retrospective application of a later norm.

---