[2025:RJ-JP:24269] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9534/2025 Sahara Education Development Welfare Society, Through Its Secretary Sameen Mohammad S/o Isarial, Age About 38 Years, Having Its Address At Village Chwandi Khurd, Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director And Special Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 5. State Nodal Officer, Shri Anapurna Rasoi Yojna, Local Self Department, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yuduvanshi For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/07/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the record of case be called and by any appropriate order, writ or direction, the impugned order no. SEC/SARY/2025- 26/871 dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure 5) and order no. SEC/SARY/2025-26/875 dated 06.06.2025 (Annexue 6) may kindly be quashed with all consequential benefits. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may be passed in favour of the petitioner.” [2025:RJ-JP:24269] (2 of 5) [CW-9534/2025] 2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 by which not only the penalty has been imposed against the petitioner but also the petitioner-society has been black-listed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kisan Gramin Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11302/2022 on 04.02.2023. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case also without issuing notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed, hence this petition be disposed of in the light of direction issued by this court in the case of kisan Gramin Vikas Samiti (Supra). 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kisan Gramin Vikas Samiti (Supra) with the following directions which reads as under:- “This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 8.07.2022 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. [2025:RJ-JP:24269] (3 of 5) [CW-9534/2025] Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.’ 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner-firm has been blacklisted without providing opportunity of hearing and penalty of Rs.1 lac has also been imposed upon it. Counsel further submits that it is a case of non- application of mind and action of the respondents is also in violation of the principles of natural justice as the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2014 (9) SCC 105 in para Nos.31 & 33 has held as under:- 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 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. The "Prejudice" Argument 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 ASG. 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 black listing being specifically proposed in the show cause notice, the Appellant could have mentioned as to why such extreme penalty is not justified. It [2025:RJ-JP:24269] (4 of 5) [CW-9534/2025] 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 black list 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. The respondent(s) have not submitted any document on record to show that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order dated 08.07.2022. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure-9) has been passed by the respondents without providing any opportunity of hearing which in my considered view is in violation of principle of natural justice; secondly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gorkha Security Services (supra). I deem it proper to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 08.07.2022 is set aside. The respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order against the petitioner after providing proper opportunity of hearing.” 7. Instant petition also stands disposed of in the light of the direction issued in the case of Kisan Gramin Vikas Samiti [2025:RJ-JP:24269] (5 of 5) [CW-9534/2025] (Supra), and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders, after providing the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/70