[2025:RJ-JP:50577] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18316/2025 M/s Mdindia Health Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative- Mr. Anuj Tewari, Vice-President (Legal), C/o M/s Mdindia Health Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 46/1, E-Space, A-2 Building, 3Rd Floor, Vadgaonsheri, Pune Nagar Road, Pune-411014. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Project Director, Rajasthan Government Health Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harshit Kakani Mr. Aditya Kumar Singh Mr. Hemant Kumar Singh Ms. Anukriti Trivedi through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 15/12/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 14.10.2025 (delivered on 06.11.2025) issued by the Project Director, Rajasthan Government Health Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Learned Senior counsel, Mr. Abhishek Malhotra assisted by Mr. Harshit Kakani submits that vide judgment dated 31.07.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9690/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:50577] (2 of 6) [CW-18316/2025] titled as MD India Health Insurance TPA Private Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, this Court has quashed the show cause notice dated 20.05.2025 and the blacklisting order dated 12.06.2025 issued by the respondents and has observed as under:- “11. The instant case is a clear case of violation of the principles of natural justice wherein the petitioner received the show cause notice and duly submitted a reply on 23.05.2025, asking the respondents to provide certain documents and access to the portal. However, without paying any heed to the aforesaid reply and without providing the petitioner due opportunity of hearing, straightaway the order impugned has been passed by the respondents. ……… 14. There is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice in the instant case, as the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was served with a brief show cause notice levelling certain charges against him. The petitioner subsequently, asked for certain additional details and sought time to submit the reply. However, without considering the request of the petitioner and even without taking into account the contents of the petitioner’s response in the form of reply to show cause notice and without considering the contents of the petitioner’s brief reply, straightaway the impugned order has been passed by the respondents. 15. The underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under common law, is designed to check and prevent arbitrary exercise of powers by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, these principles impose a duty to act fairly, ensuring fair play in administrative action. The fundamental maxim of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem has several facets, two of them being (a)notice of the case to be issued and (b) opportunity to explain. In the instant case, the first requirement was duly complied with by the respondents by issuing a [2025:RJ-JP:50577] (3 of 6) [CW-18316/2025] shown cause notice to the petitioner but they failed to comply with the second requirement as they did not grant the petitioner any opportunity to explain before passing the impugned order, which has resulted in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and there by barred/blacklisted the petitioner from participating in future bidding and tender process for a period of three years. 16. Hence, the order impugned amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, having been passed without affording the petitioner a due opportunity of hearing. Thus, on both counts, the order impugned dated 12.06.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set-aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice clearly specifying the allegations levelled against the petitioner. In the event, such a notice is issued by the respondents to the petitioner, it is expected from the respondents to consider the reply, so filed by the petitioner pursuant thereto and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application (s) if any, also stand disposed of.” 3. Learned Senior counsel submits that despite the specific directions issued by this Court, the show cause notice subsequently issued by the respondents, dated 14.10.2025 fails to meet the directions as issued by this Court as the documents which were not made available to the petitioner by the respondents along with the first show cause notice dated 20.05.2025, has still not been made available to the petitioner and thus, the impugned show cause notice dated 14.10.2025 suffers from the same illegality again and thus, deserves to meet the same fate. [2025:RJ-JP:50577] (4 of 6) [CW-18316/2025] 4. Learned Senior counsel submits that after the issuance of show cause notice dated 14.10.2025, a detailed reply dated 12.11.2025 was submitted by the petitioner through his counsel, wherein in para 25 of the said reply, specific documents/reports have been sought by the petitioner from the respondents but the same are still awaited. 5. Lastly, learned Senior counsel submits that it is the read-only access of the RGHS portal to the petitioner amongst other things, which is sine qua non to enable them for preparation of reply to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2025. 6. E-converso, Mr. Archit Bohra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action as of now to approach this Court as the show cause notice dated 14.10.2025 has been rightly issued by the respondents, more particularly in light of the judgment dated 31.07.2025 passed by this Court. Learned counsel submits that the petition is solely based upon apprehension which cannot be a ground for the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Learned counsel on instructions also submits that in case, they are so directed, the read-only access to the RGHS portal can be made available in the office premises of the respondents, so as to enable the petitioners to have access to the information from the said portal. However, learned counsel submits that the manner and modus-operandi of providing the said read-only access to the portal would be as permissible in accordance with law and as the administrative exigencies permit. [2025:RJ-JP:50577] (5 of 6) [CW-18316/2025] 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The controversy in hand bottom downs primarily to the read- only access of RGHS portal and other documents/reports which are sought to be relied upon by the respondents in their impugned show cause notice dated 14.10.2025. At this stage, being conscious of the fact that the adjudication on the said show cause notice is yet to be done, without travelling into the merits of the facts narrated in the show cause notice, so also the contentions raised at bar, it would be in the fitness of things to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) The respondents are directed to provide a read-only access of the RGHS portal to the petitioner for a period of 45 days. The said period of 45 days should be informed by the respondents to the petitioner by a written communication, to be served three days in advance; (ii) The said access to the portal would be made available within the office premises of the respondent No.3 at two terminals under the administrative control of the respondents; and (iii) Any other document which finds mention in the show cause notice and on which the respondents tends to rely upon for the adjudication of the show cause notice should also be made available to the petitioners as already directed by this Court in its order dated 31.07.2025. 10. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. It is clarified that none of the directions made above should be construed as any direction to the manner in which the information is to be made available or the adjudication of the [2025:RJ-JP:50577] (6 of 6) [CW-18316/2025] show cause notice would take place and the same be done solely in accordance with law. 12. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /19