2. The appellant/petitioner approached the Court
3. The relevant portion of the order impugned, dated
4. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on
i) The impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P. No.
11034 of 2025 needs to be set aside on the ground that the
appellant was not provided with an opportunity of personal
hearing to put-forth the appellant's case, before the 2nd
respondent prior to passing of the impugned order, dated
28.03.2025 by the 2nd respondent and therefore, the present
Writ Appeal needs to be allowed as prayed for.
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
ii) The appellant is entitled for being provided with a
reasonable opportunity of personal hearing for deciding the
subject issue on merits and hence, the relief as prayed for by
the appellant/writ petitioner in W.P.No.11034 of 2024 needs to
be granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner.
iii) Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
"M/s.Techno Prints Vs.Chhattisgarh Text Book
Corporation and another" dated 12.02.2025 and also the
judgment of this Court dated 24.3.2023 passed in W.P.No.518
of 2023 in support of appellant's case, the learned senior
designated counsel contends that the appellant/petitioner herein
is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ appeal.
iv) The order impugned in W.P.No.11034 of 2025 passed by the
2nd respondent, dated 28.03.2025 is unreasoned order passed
in clear violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the
order, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.11034 of 2025
confirming the action of the respondents in blacklisting the
petitioner's company vide the said impugned order, dated
28.03.2025 of the 2nd respondent has to be set-aside.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
appellant/petitioner contends that the present Writ
Appeal has to be allowed as prayed for.
5. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf
of the respondents mainly puts-forth the following
submissions:-
i) Despite the issuance of six notices to the appellant herein, the
appellant failed to furnish any explanation.
ii) Since the said notices clearly indicated that failure to submit
a satisfactory explanation within the stipulated time from the
date of issuance of the said notices would result in
termination/forfeiture/blacklisting and despite the said
intimation, the appellant/petitioner did not provide any
explanation. Therefore, the relief sought for by the appellant in
the present writ appeal cannot be granted.
iii) Principles of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula
and an opportunity of personal hearing need not be provided to
the appellant/petitioner, since he had failed to respond to six
(06) show-cause notices.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
contends that the present Writ Appeal needs to be
dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
6. A bare perusal of the order of this Court dated 01.05.2025
passed in W.P. No.11034 of 2025 clearly indicates that the
impugned order dated 28.03.2025 was set aside to the extent
that it did not specify the period of blacklisting which in the
considered view of the Court admittedly was observed to be too
harsh and the matter was remanded to the authorities for an
appropriate decision regarding the period for which the
appellant's company is to be blacklisted duly examining the
gravity of the lapses on the part of the appellant/petitioner. The
entire exercise was further directed to be completed within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
7. This Court in its order, dated 01.05.2025 passed in
W.P.No.11034 of 2025 observed that the judgmentS, relied by
the learned senior designated counsel in Erusian Equipment
and Chemicals Ltd., Raghunath Thakur, Gorka Security Services
and UMC Technologies are not applicable to the case on hand
and are distinguishable as the appellant/petitioner had not
submitted its explanation to the show-cause notices issued to it
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
by the respondent Authorities, but however, this Court in its
order, dated 01.05.2025 in W.P.No.11034 of 2025 failed to take
note of an important fact borne on record that respondent Nos.2
& 3 entered into agreement, dated 07.02.2023 with the
appellant/petitioner company for supply of Eggs as per the
terms and conditions of the agreement for a period of two years
in the districts of Medchal-Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy, Sangareddy
and Vikarabad in Zone-VI, Charimnar Zone commencing from
01.03.2023 and the said period concluded even before passing
of the impunged proceedings, dated 28.03.2025 by the 2nd
respondent on 01.03.2025 itself, therefore, this Court opines
that the order impugned of the 2nd respondent, dated
28.03.2025 after conclusion of period of contract had been
passed hastily without providing an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner without application of mind and hence,
an adverse inference can be drawn that the 2nd respondent
acted malafidely to prohibit the appellant/petitioner from
participating in future tenders.
8. This Court opines that the plea as put-forth by the
learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
respondents that the appellant/petitioner having failed
to submit explanation for '6' show-cause notices cannot
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
be provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and
further the plea that principles of natural justice are not
a straight Jacket formula to be extended to a person
who is not diligent and prompt in furnishing his
explanation to the show-cause notices are not tenable
and hence, rejected since this Court opines that failure
on the part of the appellant/petitioner to submit
explanation to the various show-cause notices issued to
the petitioner would not be sufficient to shut the doors of
this Court on the appellant/writ petitioner when
appellant/petitioner is subjected to Blacklisting vide the
impugned order, dated 28.03.2025 of the 2nd respondent
unilaterally after the period of contract had been
concluded with the respondent Authority on 01.03.2025
itself, and since admittedly, the order of blacklisting
would eventually put appellant/petitioner's right to life
and right to occupation itself at stake.
9. The Apex Court in its several judgments observed in
express terms that it is an implied principles 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
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
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. Therefore, in that view
of the matter, this Court opines that the order impugned,
dated 28.03.2025 of the 2nd respondent in blacklisting
the appellant/petitioner company with immediate effect
restricting and barring the appellant/petitioner company
from participating in any future contracts tenders or
procurement processes with WD and CW Department on
the ground that appellant/petitioner failed to submit
explanation to the show-cause notices issued to the
appellant/petitioner observing that the same indicates
negligence and unwillingness to adhere to the terms of
the contract when the contract of the
appellant/petitioner company with the respondents itself
expired on 01.03.2025 itself is not only harsh for the
alleged lapses, but is also a clear example of colourable
exercise of power by the 2nd respondent herein.
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
10. This Court opines that blacklisting a bidder is a
mode of pre-emptively disqualifying him or her from
participating in any future contractual relationship, hence
blacklisting can be resorted to only after putting the
affected party to notice and only after affording an
opportunity to be heard, which is a rudimentary principle
of natural justice.
11. In Gorkha Security Services v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[(2014) 9 SCC 105], the Honourable Supreme Court has
described blacklisting as being equivalent to the civil
death of a person because it is stigmatic and debars a
person from participating in government tenders.
12. The Apex Court in its judgment (2020) 18 SCC 550
in Deffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and Another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in its head note
observed as under:
A. Government Contracts and Tenders Blacklisting -
Effect of Hearing concerned person prior to
blacklisting Essentially of Passing of adverse order
based on assumption, that too without complying
with principles of natural Justice-Impermissibility of
- Unilaterally passing adverse order against appellant
for certain actions of its erstwhile Director who had left
company long back-On facts held, order preventing
procurement from appellant was of indefinite duration and
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
disproportionate as it was passed on basis of
assumption without hearing appellant - Considering
long duration of operation of adverse order.
Supreme Court itself decided matter without
remanding matter to original authorities, and
quashed the adverse order - Held, blacklisting has the
effect of preventing a person from privilege and
advantage of entering into lawful relationship with
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 - Fundamentals of fair play require that
person concerned should be given an opportunity to
represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.
The Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment, in
particular, at Para 14 observed as under :
14. The decisions in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd.
v. State of WB and Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar as
well as later decisions have now clarified that before any
executive decision-maker proposes a drastic adverse
action, such as a debarring or blacklisting order, it is
necessary that opportunity of hearing and representation
against the proposed action is given to the party likely to
be affected. This has been stated in unequivocal terms in
Raghunath Thakur as follows: (Erusian Equipment &
Chemicals case. SCC p. 75. para 20) "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. 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."
13. The severity of the effects of blacklisting and the
need for strict observance of the principles of natural
justice were laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B
[(1975) 1 SCC 70] in the following terms:
"12. ... 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.
***
15. ... The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It
casts a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons
blacklisted and the Government in the matter of
transactions. The blacklists are "instruments of coercion".
***
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. 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
14. The Apex Court in its judgment in Kulja Industries
Ltd., vs. BSNL reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, very
clearly held that before proposing to pass a black listing
order or debarring orders the parties had to be given
hearing followed by an appropriate reasoned order.
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
In the present case, on hand admittedly as borne on
record and even as admitted by the learned Advocate
General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the
appellant/petitioner had not been provided with a
reasonable opportunity of personal hearing prior to
passing of the order impugned, dated 28.03.2025 by the
2nd respondent herein nor the order impugned passed by
the 2nd respondent, dated 28.03.2025 is a reasoned order
passed on merits.
15. The Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning
reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial
proceedings in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v.
Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. The
relevant portion reads as under:
"12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority
in support of its decision came up for consideration before
this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognised
a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and
quasijudicial orders but with the passage of time the
distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out
and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of
this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC
262].
13...
14. The expression "speaking order" was first coined by
Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context.
The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of the writ
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
of certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of
the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its
face, is a speaking order.
15. This Court always opined that the face of an order
passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an
administrative authority affecting the rights of parties,
must speak. It must not be like the "inscrutable face of a
sphinx".
47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such
decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve
the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be
done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint
on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised
by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed
to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is
virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying
the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can
be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one common purpose
which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice
delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful
to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear
and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp
reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making
process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine
qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision-making not only makes the
judges and decisionmakers less prone to errors but also
makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David
Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100
Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making,
the said requirement is now virtually a component of
human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR
553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human
Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due
process.
16. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
b) The submissions made by the learned senior
designated counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
c) The observations of the Apex Court in the
judgments:(referred to and extracted above) and
enlisted below:
i)(2014) 9 SCC 105
ii)(2014) 14 SCC 731
iii)(2010) 9 SCC 496
iv)(1975) 1 SCC 70
d) In the light of the discussion and conclusion arrived
at para Nos.6 to 15 of the present judgment
The Writ Appeal is allowed, the order impugned,
dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.11034 of 2025 is set-
aside and the action of the respondents, particularly
respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings bearing
No.4879/SNP-3/2024, dated 28.03.2025, by blacklisting
the poultry firm of the petitioner i.e., M/s Prashant
Poultry Private Limited with immediate effect is declared
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and the said
proceedings, dated 28.03.2025 of the 2nd respondent is
set-aside. The respondents are directed to receive and
process the tender to be submitted by the petitioner
company online as per the website of the respondent
department, dated 30.03.2025 inviting state level Zonal
Tender for procurement and supply of Eggs(hen) as per
the AGMARK SPECIFICATIONS and other
processing/grading conditions as mentioned in the
tender for a period of one year (April, 2025-March, 2026)
to the beneficiaries under the flagship of Arogya Lakshmi
and Supplementary Nutrition Program for Zone-1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7 and approve the tender subject to terms of
tender conditions as per law.
It is however observed that it is open to the
respondents to take appropriate action against the
petitioner if the respondents intend to do so, but strictly
in accordance to law in conformity with principles of
natural justice duly taking into consideration the
observations of the Apex Court in the various
judgments(referred to and extracted above). However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
SN,J & JSR,J
W.A.No.549_2025
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
_________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
07.05.2025
Note: Furnish C.C. by today
LPD
