[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Parmar Contractor vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Khetra Vidyut Co. ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23473
1 WP-8307-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8307 of 2026
M/S PARMAR CONTRACTOR
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KHETRA VIDYUT CO. LTD AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2026
passed by the respondent No.2 whereby a direction was issued for
cancellation of license and blacklisting the petitioner firm for three months.
The petitioner also challenged another order dated 03.02.2026 by which the
first order has been modified without any reason and after cancelling the
license of the petitioner, blacklisted the firm without mentioning any period.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner firm is registered
Company for providing services under the Schemes. The respondent
introduced a scheme namely OYT for providing permanent electricity
connection through own transformer and by superseding all earlier circulars,
except circular dated 17.11.2025 issued new circular dated 05.12.2025 which
provides procedure of work and action against the contractor. The petitioner
processed an application of Ramdayal under the Scheme of OYT and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23473
2 WP-8307-2026
assessment was done on 17.12.2025. The beneficiaries deposited the amount
on 19.12.2025 and consequently work order was issued. It is submitted that
due to agriculture work contractors are bound to complete the work without
any obstruction and without disturbing crop of other farmer and, therefore,
they are required to wait until the completion of crop. It is submitted that the
authorities were delaying the process but the beneficiaries provided material
and, therefore, the contractor completed civil work but the farmer with the
collusion of lineman started the line for which the contractor is not
responsible. The respondent No.3 visited the site and found that the line has
been started by the farmer on 16.12.2025 and thereafter issued show cause
notice to the contractor on 17.12.2025 and directed to appear before the
Circle Level Screening Committee on 18.12.2025. The petitioner appeared
before the Committee on 18.12.2025 and denied all the allegations levied
against him. It is submitted that contrary to the provisions of circular, the
petitioner has been held guilty for the work which was not done by him. The
respondent No.2 contrary to the provisions of circular dated 05.12.2025
cancelled the license of the petitioner and blacklisted the firm for three
months vide order dated 03.02.2026 and thereafter revised the order dated
03.02.2026 and cancelled the license of the petitioner and blacklisted the firm
for an indefinite period. Hence, this petition.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that while passing
the impugned order a circular dated 14.05.2025 was taken note of. However,
the said circular has been superseded by subsequent circular dated
05.12.2025 (Annexure P-4). It is further argued that by the impugned order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23473
3 WP-8307-2026
the petitioner has been blacklisted without following the principles which are
required for blacklisting of the petitioner/firm.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents was directed to seek instructions
in the matter with respect to the issuance of notice to the petitioner, prior to
passing of the blacklisting order. Counsel appearing for the respondents on
instructions has uploaded the same on ERP which are as follows :-
" करण ं . 8307/2026 (मेसस एम.एस. परमार क श
Vs M.P.M.K.V.V.C.L. एवं 8312/2026 (मेसस महादे व
पावर Vs M.P.M.K.V.V.C.L.) के करण म आपके ारा
े षत प . िनरं क दनांक 20.03.2026 के ब द ु . 03 के
अनुसार कथन िन नानुसार है :-
1. प रभाषा आशय :- जी हाँ 3 मह ने के िलए लाइसस र
करना' को 'अ थायी प से लैकिल ट अथवा लायसस
िनर तीकरण करना ह माना जाता है ।
2. नीित आधार :- कंपनी ारा जार प रप ं ./ .सं./ म. े.
/ काय एवं योजना / 138 भोपाल दनांक 14.05.2025 क
कं डका . (स) (VI) अनुसार ठे केदारो / य वशेष ारा
बना ा कलन वीकृ ित के काय िन पादन पाए जाने पर
' लैकिल ट' श द का योग 'लाइसस र करना / लाइसस
िनलंबन के पयायवाची के प म कया गया है ।
3. या मक आशय :- िनंग कमेट का उ े य केवल
ठे केदार को एक विश अविध (3 मह ने) के िलए िन वदाओं
म भाग लेने से रोकना / लैकिल ट करना था।
4. वभागीय मंशा :- कंपनी के प रप अनुसार तीन माह क
लैकिल ट ंग अथवा लायसस िनर तीकरण का कोई
ावधान नह ं है , एवं उ दोन आदे श िल पक य/कायालयीन
ु ट क वजह से जार हुये है ।
महा बंधक (सं./सं.) म. .म. े. व. व.क.िल.सीहोर"
5. From the aforesaid, it is reflected that they are trying to give a
justification that the word blacklisting which is being used in the impugned
order may be considered as cancellation of license for a temporary period.
However, the fact remains that blacklisting and cancellation of license are
entirely different aspects. Prior to the proposed action for blacklisting of the
petitioner/firm, show cause notice is required to be issued to the concerning,
but none of the aforesaid measures are adopted by the respondents in the
matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23473
4 WP-8307-2026
6. The law with respect to the blacklisting is settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while
deciding the case of Gorkha Security (supra) has taken note of the decision
in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination Vs. Ramjee reported in (1977) 2
SCC 256 has held as under :-
"30. We are conscious of the following words of
wisdom expressed by this Court through the pen of
Krishna Iyer, J. in Board of Mining Examination v.
Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256 :
"If the jurisprudence of remedies were understood and
applied from the perspective of social efficaciousness,
the problem raised in this appeal would not have ended
the erroneous way it did in the High Court. Judges must
never forget that every law has a social purpose and
engineering process without appreciating which justice
to the law cannot be done. Here, the socio-legal
situation we are faced with is a colliery, an explosive,
an accident, luckily not lethal, caused by violation of a
regulation and consequential cancellation of the
certificate of the delinquent shot-firer, eventually
quashed by the High Court, for processual solecisms, by
a writ of certiorari.
***
13.....Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking
landmine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by
the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the
form, features and the fundamentals of such essential
processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and
circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural
justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of
natural justice, without reference to the administrative
realities and other factors of a given case, can be
exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but
should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man
shall be hit below the belt--that is the conscience of the
matter.
14. ... We cannot look at law in the abstract or natural
justice as a mere artefact. Nor can we fit into a rigid
mould the concept of reasonable opportunity."
31. When it comes to the action of blacklisting which is
termed as "civil death" it would be difficult to accept
the proposition that without even putting the noticee to
such a contemplated action and giving him a chance to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23473
5 WP-8307-2026
show cause as to why such an action be not taken, final
order can be passed blacklisting such a person only on
the premise that this is one of the actions so stated in the
provisions of NIT.
...
33. When we apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment
to the facts of the present case, it becomes difficult to
accept the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor
General. In the first instance, we may point out that no
such case was set up by the respondents that by omitting
to state the proposed action of blacklisting the appellant
in the show-cause notice, has not caused any prejudice
to the appellant. Moreover, had the action of
blacklisting being specifically proposed in the show-
cause notice, the appellant could have mentioned as to
why such extreme penalty is not justified. It could have
come out with extenuating circumstances defending
such an action even if the defaults were there and the
Department was not satisfied with the explanation qua
the defaults. It could have even pleaded with the
Department not to blacklist the appellant or do it for a
lesser period in case the Department still wanted to
blacklist the appellant. Therefore, it is not at all
acceptable that non-mentioning of proposed blacklisting
in the show-cause notice has not caused any prejudice to
the appellant. This apart, the extreme nature of such a
harsh penalty like blacklisting with severe
consequences, would itself amount to causing prejudice
to the appellant. 34. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of
the view that the impugned judgment [Gorakha Security
Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 205 DLT 309]
of the High Court does not decide the issue in the
correct perspective. The impugned Order dated 11-9-
2013 passed by the respondents blacklisting the
appellant without giving the appellant notice thereto, is
contrary to the principles of natural justice as it was not
specifically proposed and, therefore, there was no show-
cause notice given to this effect before taking action of
blacklisting against the appellant. We, therefore, set
aside and quash the impugned action of blacklisting the
appellant. The appeals are allowed to this extent.
However, we make it clear that it would be open to the
respondents to take any action in this behalf after
complying with the necessary procedural formalities
delineated above. No costs."
7. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, as there was no notice issued to the petitioner showing the
proposed action of blacklisting to be taken against the petitioner, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23473
6 WP-8307-2026
impugned order itself is unsustainable. It is further unsustainable owing to
the fact that the wrong circular has been considered by the authorities which
was superseded by circular dated 05.12.2025. Under these circumstances, the
impugned order becomes unsustainable. It is hereby quashed.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed off. No order as to
costs.
9. However, liberty is extended to the respondents to pass a fresh order,
in case, needs so arise taking note of the policy dated 05.12.2025.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
