The Respondent ignored their own letter dated 13th August 2020, granting explicit permission to Sai Hotline to sublet work to the Petitioner. This conduct makes it clear that the Respondent had knowingly allowed the Petitioner to act as a subcontractor under Sai Hotline, contradicting their later stance.

Therefore, based on the aforementioned reasons, we find the action of the Respondent in debarring the Petitioner to be unsustainable. We quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 14th March 2024. The Petition is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs. (Para 21)

In this matter, the Respondent's actions in debarring the Petitioner were found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and malafide. The Court noted several inconsistencies and contradictions in the Respondent's approach, particularly their retroactive application of a policy and their failure to provide reasons for serious allegations. Consequently, the debarment order was quashed, and the Petition was allowed.