1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11781 of 2024 Decided on: 31.07.2026 M/s Bhim Enterprises …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s grievance is to the decision of respondent-Gram Panchayat, Magar Padhru, Development Block, Dhanotu, District Mandi, H.P. taken under resolution No.5 passed on 06.01.2024 by the aforesaid Gram Panchyat as conveyed by respondent No.6 on 08.01.2024 whereunder he has been blacklisted for indefinite period. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, following order was passed in this matter on 30.07.2026:- “Grievance of the petitioner primarily is that he has been blacklisted by respondent No.6 and that too for an indefinite period. Let learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions as to whether any notice of blacklisting was issued to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 the petitioner prior to ordering of blacklisting on 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-2). List the matter tomorrow (i.e. 31.07.2026). 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General has apprised that no notice of blacklisting was ever issued to the petitioner. Notices dated 18.07.2023, 24.07.2023 and 07.08.2023 issued to the petitioner and enclosed with the reply were for alleged inferior quality of work being performed by him. There is no document on record to establish that any notice for blacklisting of petitioner was ever issued to him by the respondents before ordering to blacklist him under impugned order/resolution dated 06.01.2024/08.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) and that too for an indefinite period. In Gorkha Security Services2, Hon’ble Apex Court held that fundamental purpose behind serving show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing the alleged breaches and defaults, he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Nature of action proposed to be taken for such a breach is also to be reflected in the show cause notice. The relevant paras from the decision are as under:- 2(2014) 9SCC 105 3 21. The Central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of Show Cause Notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to black listing, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. 22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz: i) The material/ grounds to be stated on which according to the Department necessitates an action; ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice but it can be clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.” 4 It is well settled that there cannot be any blacklisting for indefinite period. In Panda Infra Project Limited3, Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the observations made in Kulja Industries Limited versus Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others4 that debarment is never permanent and period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. Duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of lapse and the incident and/ or gravity of commission and omission on part of the contractor which led to the incident should be relevant considerations. Portion relevant to context is as under:- “25. The next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the contractor was required to be debarred/blacklisted permanently? 26. In the case of Kulja Industries4 , this Court has observed that “debarment” is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.In the said decision this Court emphasised on prescribing guidelines by determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective. It is observed and held by this Court that while determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective, for the sake of objectivity and 3(2022)4 SCC 393 4(2014) 14 SCC 731 5 transparency it is required to formulate broad guidelines to be followed. It is further observed that different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. 27. In the present case, after the order of blacklisting was passed, the State Government has formulated guidelines by O.M. dated 26.11.2021 which provides as under:- “The blacklisting period per offence shall be limited to 03 (Three) years subject to an overall maximum cumulative period of 10 (Ten) years for multiple offences” However, we may observe that we do not approve of the guidelines issued by the State Government by O.M. dated 26.11.2021. 28. Duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of the lapse and the incident and/or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations. In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor’s first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years. However, as the said guidelines are not under challenge, we rest the matter there and leave it to the State Government to suitably amend and/or modify the said office memorandum. However, what we have observed above can be a guide while determining the period of debarment/blacklisting.” 4. For the forgoing, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned decision dated 06/08.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period is quashed and set-aside. However, 6 respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 31, 2026 Judge yogesh