The law is sure that an order of the blacklist derives the principle of audi alteram partem, but this obligation of the state implies any other facet or aspect of the principles of natural justice. In Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[5], the company had been blacklisted by the government after filing a complaint. The company argued that the principles of natural justice require that the advertisement should have been provided because of the advertisement with all the materials that served as the basis for the exposure of the cause of the announcement. The Supreme Court held that it was right that a decision putting an approved licensee on the blacklist should have civil consequences and, in such a situation, in the absence of legal provisions, the only necessity of the right to adopt such a decision was to respect the principle of audi alteram partem, which is one facet of the principles of natural justice. The assertion that it is the respondent`s responsibility to have provided the material on the basis of which the charges against the applicant were made is not the requirement of the audi alteram partem principle. There is a sufficient requirement of the law for the applicant to have been implicated before being blacklisted. Another aspect that needs to be emphasized is how the cause of the ad is written. Recently, in the case of Cartel Infotech Limited vs.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) [8], the Supreme Court ruled that the author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements. The Court also cautioned with regard to the interpretation of the terms of the tender and stressed the grammatical importance of the language used in the Notice of Notification on the Case. The mere show-cause-message show cannot visit such a serious consequence for a bidder and can be difficult to bear. Normally, the parties would be governed by their contracts and tender terms. In view of the economic activity of state-owned and state-owned enterprises, the Court considered that certain mechanisms for monitoring procedural fairness should be put in place. This approach had led to a review of bids under a written procedure under Article 226 of india`s constitution.