[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S L N Malviya Infra Projects Pvt Ltd vs Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development ... on 13 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13245
1 WP-1883-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1883 of 2026
M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Jubin Prasad - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Priyam Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
Petitioner impugns order dated 02.12.2025 whereby the petitioner has
been black listed for a period of two years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no show cause
notice issued to the petitioner specifically putting petitioner to notice that a
black listing order is likely to be passed. He submits that the show cause
notice merely stated that in case petitioner is not able to rectify defect,
appropriate action in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
contract will be taken.
3. Learned counsel for respondent very fairly states that the show cause
notices issued to the petitioner stated that action in accordance with the terms
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13245
2 WP-1883-2026
and conditions of the contract would be taken. He submits that no separate
notice putting the petitioner to notice that black listing order is likely to be
passed, was ever issued.
4. Reference may be had to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of UMC Technologies Private Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India
and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551 , wherein the Supreme Court has
categorically held that a notice merely stating that appropriate steps shall be
taken as per terms and conditions of contract would not suffice as a show
cause notice for black listing. The Supreme Court has held as under :-
"25. The mere 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 show cause notice. The
Corporation's notice is completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could
not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the
Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in
the show cause notice to blacklist, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply
for the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the show cause notice dated
10.04.2018 does not fulfil the requirements of a valid show cause notice for
blacklisting. In our view, the order of blacklisting the appellant clearly traversed
beyond the bounds of the show cause notice which is impermissible in law. As a
result, the consequent blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 cannot be sustained.
26. In view of our conclusion that the blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 passed
by the Corporation is contrary to the principles of natural justice, it is unnecessary
for us to consider the other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we
deem it appropriate not to remit the matter to the Corporation for fresh
consideration."
5. The Supreme Court has held in UMC Technologies Private Ltd. (supra)
that mere existence of a clause in the bid document which mentions black
listing does not satisfy mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the
proposed action in the show cause notice. An action taken in such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:13245
3 WP-1883-2026
circumstances would be contrary to the principles of natural justice.
6. In view of the above, since notice issued to the petitioner did not put the
petitioner to specific notice that a black listing order is likely to be passed,
the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 is not sustainable and is accordingly set
aside.
7. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
8. Needless to state it would be open to the respondent authority to take
fresh action in accordance with law after complying with the principles of
natural justice.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vibha
