[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Innovatiview India Limited vs Jharkhand Public Services Commission on 19 December, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5062 of 2025
Innovatiview India Limited, having its registered office at Plot No. A-82,
BLK-A, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-1, Landmark Jumma Park, Delhi-
110028 and Corporate Office at Plot No. 6, Tech Boulevard, Tower-C ,
8th Floor, Sector-127, Noida, Utttar Pradesh-201303 through its
authorized signatory namely Prashant Rathore, son of Naresh Kumar,
aged about 30 years, resident of J-3/270, DDA Flats Kalkaji ALkananda
Market, New Delhi, P.O. Kalkaji P.S. Kalkaji, District South Delhi-
110019 ... ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Public Services Commission, through its Chairman,
Having office at Circular Rd, Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, Ranchi, P.O. &
P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001.
2. State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Having office at 1st
Floor, Project Building, P.Ο. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi- 834004
3. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Services Commission,
Having office at Circular Rd, Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, P.O. & P.S.
Lalpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001.
4. Secretary, Jharkhand Public Services Commissioner, Having office
at Circular Rd, , Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001 ... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate
Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Awasthi, Advocate
Mr. Parag Maini, Advocate
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate
Mr. Maaz Ahmed, Advocate
Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
---------
07/Dated: 19.12.2025
1. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:
(a) For issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting
aside the Impugned Order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure-1)
bearing S.No. 1/S.-JPSC-02/2021/2060 issued by the
Respondent No. 4 i.e., Secretary, Jharkhand Public Services
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
Commission under the aegis of Respondent No. 1, as being
wholly illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional, and
violative of principles of natural justice.
(b) For issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
to treat the petitioner as eligible for participation in all future
tenders and contractual opportunities floated by the
Respondent No. 1.
(c) For issuance of any appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s)
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the
facts of the present case.
2. Bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 whereby the
petitioner has been ordered to be blacklisted, evinces that it was not
proceeded by any specific show-cause notice to this effect. At this
stage a faint and a feeble attempt is made by Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate
for the respondents that the same is implied from the show-cause
notice issued on 27.05.2025 wherein the details of the shortcomings
qua the petitioner have been elaborately spelt out and the petitioner has
clearly been put to notice that the necessary appropriate action would
be taken against him which would not be limited to only cancellation of
the work allotted but could also be extended to blacklisting the
petitioner.
3. However, we find no merit in this contention.
4. It is not in dispute that the order of blacklisting was passed without
issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner. It is further not in
dispute that even the duration of blacklisting has not been mentioned in
the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2025.
5. In Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and
Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it
was incumbent upon the petitioner to issue show-cause notice and also
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to taking
debarment action. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder-
"16. It is a common case of the parties that the
blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause
notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and
does not even demand much amplification. The
necessity of compliance with the principles of
natural justice by giving the opportunity to the
person against whom action of blacklisting is
sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale
behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil
consequences follow. It is described as "civil
death" of a person who is foisted with the order
of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in
nature and debars such a person from
participating in government tenders which means
precluding him from the award of government
contracts.
17. Way back in the year 1975, this Court in
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of
W.B., highlighted the necessity of giving an
opportunity to such a person by serving a show-
cause notice thereby giving him opportunity to
meet the allegations which were in the mind of
the authority contemplating blacklisting of such a
person. This is clear from the reading of paras 12
and 20 of the said judgment. Necessitating this
requirement, the Court observed thus: (SCC pp.
74-75)
"12. Under Article 298 of the Constitution
the executive power of the Union and the
State shall extend to the carrying on of any
trade and to the acquisition, holding and
disposal of property and the making of
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
contracts for any purpose. The State can
carry on executive function by making a law
or without making a law. The exercise of
such powers and functions in trade by the
State is subject to Part III of the
Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality
before the law and equal protection of the
laws. Equality of opportunity should apply to
matters of public contracts. The State has
the right to trade. The State has there the
duty to observe equality. An ordinary
individual can choose not to deal with any
person. The Government cannot choose to
exclude persons by discrimination. The
order of blacklisting has the effect of
depriving a person of equality of opportunity
in the matter of public contract. A person
who is on the approved list is unable to
enter into advantageous relations with the
Government because of the order of
blacklisting. A person who has been dealing
with the Government in the matter of sale
and purchase of materials has a legitimate
interest or expectation. When the State acts
to the prejudice of a person it has to be
supported by legality.
***
20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing
a person from the privilege and advantage
of entering into lawful relationship with the
Government for purposes of gains. The fact
that a disability is created by the order of
blacklisting indicates that the relevant
authority is to have an objective satisfaction.
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
Fundamentals of fair play require that the
person concerned should be given an
opportunity to represent his case before he
is put on the blacklist."
18. Again, in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar
the aforesaid principle was reiterated in the
following manner: (SCC p. 230, para 4)
"4. Indisputably, no notice had been given
to the appellant of the proposal of
blacklisting the appellant. It was contended
on behalf of the State Government that
there was no requirement in the rule of
giving any prior notice before blacklisting
any person. Insofar as the contention that
there is no requirement specifically of giving
any notice is concerned, the respondent is
right. But it is an implied principle of the rule
of law that any order having civil
consequence should be passed only after
following the principles of natural justice. It
has to be realised that blacklisting any
person in respect of business ventures has
civil consequence for the future business of
the person concerned in any event. Even if
the rules do not express so, it is an
elementary principle of natural justice that
parties affected by any order should have
right of being heard and making
representations against the order. In that
view of the matter, the last portion of the
order insofar as it directs blacklisting of the
appellant in respect of future contracts,
cannot be sustained in law. In the premises,
that portion of the order directing that the
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
appellant be placed in the blacklist in
respect of future contracts under the
Collector is set aside. So far as the
cancellation of the bid of the appellant is
concerned, that is not affected. This order
will, however, not prevent the State
Government or the appropriate authorities
from taking any future steps for blacklisting
the appellant if the Government is so
entitled to do in accordance with law i.e.
after giving the appellant due notice and an
opportunity of making representation. After
hearing the appellant, the State
Government will be at liberty to pass any
order in accordance with law indicating the
reasons therefor. We, however, make it
quite clear that we are not expressing any
opinion on the correctness or otherwise of
the allegations made against the appellant.
The appeal is thus disposed of."
19. Recently, in Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India
speaking through one of us (Jasti Chelameswar,
J.) this Court emphatically reiterated the principle
by explaining the same in the following manner:
(SCC pp. 262-63, paras 13-15)
"13. The concept of „blacklisting‟ is explained
by this Court in Erusian Equipment &
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. as under:
(SCC p. 75, para 20)
„20. Blacklisting has the effect of
preventing a person from the privilege
and advantage of entering into lawful
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
relationship with the Government for
purposes of gains.‟
14. The nature of the authority of the State to
blacklist the persons was considered by this
Court in the abovementioned case and took
note of the constitutional provision (Article
298), which authorises both the Union of
India and the States to make contracts for
any purpose and to carry on any trade or
business. It also authorises the acquisition,
holding and disposal of property. This Court
also took note of the fact that the right to
make a contract includes the right not to
make a contract. By definition, the said right
is inherent in every person capable of
entering into a contract. However, such a
right either to enter or not to enter into a
contract with any person is subject to a
constitutional obligation to obey the
command of Article 14. Though nobody has
any right to compel the State to enter into a
contract, everybody has a right to be treated
equally when the State seeks to establish
contractual relationships. The effect of
excluding a person from entering into a
contractual relationship with the State would
be to deprive such person to be treated
equally with those, who are also engaged in
similar activity. 15. It follows from the above
judgment in Erusian Equipment case that the
decision of the State or its instrumentalities
not to deal with certain persons or class of
persons on account of the undesirability of
entering into the contractual relationship with
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
such persons is called blacklisting. The State
can decline to enter into a contractual
relationship with a person or a class of
persons for a legitimate purpose. The
authority of the State to blacklist a person is
a necessary concomitant to the executive
power of the State to carry on the trade or
the business and making of contracts for any
purpose, etc. There need not be any
statutory grant of such power. The only legal
limitation upon the exercise of such an
authority is that the State is to act fairly and
rationally without in any way being arbitrary--
thereby such a decision can be taken for
some legitimate purpose. What is the
legitimate purpose that is sought to be
achieved by the State in a given case can
vary depending upon various factors."
20. Thus, there is no dispute about the
requirement of serving show-cause notice. We
may also hasten to add that once the show-
cause notice is given and opportunity to reply
to the showcause notice is afforded, it is not
even necessary to give an oral hearing. The
High Court has rightly repudiated the
appellant‟s attempt in finding foul with the
impugned order on this ground. Such a
contention was specifically repelled in Patel
Engg."
6. Similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 804, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was incumbent on the part of the
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
Department to state in the show-cause notice that the competent
authority intended to impose such a penalty of blacklisting so as to
provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show
cause against the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there
must be a clear inference from show-cause notice that blacklisting
action is proposed.
7. Yet again, similar reiteration of law can be found in another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UMC Technologies (P) Ltd.
v. Food Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that for show-cause
notice to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, such notice
must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be clearly
inferred therefrom that there is intention on the part of the issuer of the
notice to blacklist the noticee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held
that existence of a clause in the bid document, which mentions
blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory
requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the showcause
notice. Lastly, it was held that requirement of a valid, particularized and
unambiguous show-cause notice is particularly crucial due to the
severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatization that accrues
to the person/entity being blacklisted.
8. Earlier to this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daffodills
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020)
18 SCC 550, held that blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person
from privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the
Government for purposes of gain. The fact that a disability is created by
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have
an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the
person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case
before he is put on blacklist.
9. Merely because the Government has a right to enter into contract
with anyone of its choice does not give the Government the power to
arbitrarily blacklist a party without affording a fair hearing as blacklisting
involves material damage of losing the prospect of entering into
contracts with the Government in future.
10. The effect of blacklisting, needless to observe, are quite
drastic. It prevents a person from the privilege and the advantage of
entering into lawful relationship with the Government, PSUs for the
purposes of gain. Apart from reducing the person's prospects of making
profits, it leads to loss of credibility and goodwill, a decline in business,
and clients, besides causing financial hardship. It virtually acts as a libel
to the person if unjustifiably done.
11. This is precisely the reason why the courts of law have, time
and again, established certain principles before blacklisting a person
which include (a) Principles of natural justice and (b) Doctrine of
proportionality. The 'doctrine of proportionality' here would essentially
have to be understood as, maintaining a proper balance between the
adverse effects which the administrative order may have on the rights,
persons, keeping in mind the purpose for which they intend to serve.
12. Reverting back to the facts of instant case, since the petitioner has
not been issued any show-cause notice or afforded an opportunity of
personal hearing and has straightway been blacklisted, the action of
2025:JHHC:38392-DB
blacklisting vide impugned letter dated 18.08.2025 cannot withstand the
judicial scrutiny and the said order is accordingly quashed and set
aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, this order
shall not come in the way of the respondents in case they choose to
further proceed in the matter by issuing a specific show-cause notice to
the petitioner if they still intend to blacklist the petitioner, and thereafter
proceed in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
19.12.2025
Sharda/MM/
NAFRCp.02
Uploaded 22/12/2025
