1 2026:CGHC:20107-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1109 of 2020 Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o P.D. Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 4 Ambedkar Nagar Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Patthalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.04 20:46:40 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ram esh Sinha, C.J. 30/04/2026 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years and his security deposit has been forfeited in relation to the tender work allotted to him. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned action has been taken without granting him a proper and effective opportunity of hearing, whereas the respondents contend that the petitioner was repeatedly called upon to comply with the tender conditions by depositing the differential amount within time, but he failed to do so, resulting in the consequential action impugned herein. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 04.02.2020 and further be pleased to direct the respondent- authorities to allow the petitioner to complete the construction work as per tender. 10.2 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, a registered contractor under the respondent department, was allotted a work contract pursuant to a tender issued by the respondent No. 4 on 17.09.2019 for construction of C.C. Road at Ward No. 8, Patthalgaon. The petitioner’s tender was accepted and work was accordingly allotted to him vide order dated 19.11.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently a demand was raised requiring him to deposit the difference amount of ₹1,28,665/- on account of variation between the Schedule of Rates and the quoted bid, and a communication dated 20.01.2020 was received by him on 24.01.2020 directing deposit of the said amount within five days. ******* It is further the case of the petitioner that immediately upon receipt of the said communication, he deposited the demanded amount through T.D.R. on 28.01.2020, which was accepted by the respondents without any objection. However, despite such deposit, the respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 whereby the security deposit of the petitioner was forfeited and he was blacklisted for a period of three years. The petitioner challenges the said action primarily on the ground that it was passed without affording any proper opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.02.2020, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years and his security deposit has been forfeited, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that 4 the petitioner had substantially complied with the demand by depositing the differential amount of ₹1,28,665/- immediately upon receipt of the communication dated 20.01.2020, and therefore there was no deliberate default or breach on his part warranting such harsh action. It is further submitted that the respondents have proceeded in a mechanical manner without considering the conduct of the petitioner and without any proportionality in punishment. ******* It is further argued that the impugned action has been taken in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as no proper and effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before imposing the extreme penalty of blacklisting, which has serious civil consequences affecting his right to carry on business. Learned counsel submits that the alleged earlier notices were never duly served upon the petitioner and, in any case, once the petitioner had deposited the required amount, the respondents ought to have accepted the same and not proceeded to impose punitive action. Reliance is placed on the settled law that blacklisting cannot be ordered without adherence to due process and compliance with audi alteram partem. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3/State submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable so far as the State respondents are concerned, as no specific relief has been sought against them and the impugned action has been taken solely by respondent No. 4 in its administrative capacity. It is submitted that the State respondents are formal parties and have merely facilitated the tender process in accordance with the applicable rules and 5 regulations. It is further contended that the petition, as framed, does not disclose any independent cause of action against the answering respondents warranting their adjudication in the present proceedings. ******* It is further submitted that even otherwise, the impugned action has been taken by the competent local authority in exercise of its contractual powers arising out of the tender conditions, and the State respondents have no direct role in the decision-making process relating to blacklisting or forfeiture of security deposit. Learned counsel submits that all actions have been undertaken by respondent No. 4 under the relevant municipal and tender guidelines, and therefore, the writ petition, insofar as it is directed against the State respondents, deserves to be dismissed with the observation that no adjudicatory relief lies against them. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and has been filed by suppressing material facts with an intention to mislead this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the petitioner was duly intimated on multiple occasions vide letters dated 11.11.2019, 22.11.2019, 28.12.2019 and 20.01.2020 to deposit the differential amount arising out of the variation between the Schedule of Rates and the bid quoted by him. Despite sufficient opportunities, the petitioner deliberately failed to comply within the stipulated time and only attempted partial compliance belatedly, which was not acceptable in terms of the tender conditions. It is further submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the consequences of non-deposit, including cancellation of allotment and blacklisting. 6 ******* It is further submitted that the impugned action dated 04.02.2020 has been passed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender as well as pursuant to the resolution of the competent President-in-Council, and after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was repeatedly called upon to comply, however he remained non-responsive and failed to submit any satisfactory explanation. Learned counsel submits that the principles of natural justice have not been violated as the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had been given adequate opportunity, and the plea of non-receipt of notices is incorrect and contrary to record. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of blacklisting and forfeiture has been passed in a fair, reasoned and justified manner, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the records of the case with utmost circumspection. 8. Considered on the submissions. There is no such statement or any averment from the respondent side that the petitioner was granted any opportunity of hearing before the order of permanent blacklisting was passed against him vide Annexure-P/1. In the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.30 that :- “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 : (SCC pp. 258 & 262, 7 paras 1, 13 & 14) “1. 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 8 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.” 9. Further, in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 70, it was held that 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”. Therefore, in such a matter fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put to the blacklist. 10. So far as the forfeiture of the security deposit/EMD is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said action does not warrant interference. The material available on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner failed to comply with the essential terms and conditions of the tender within the stipulated time, particularly with regard to timely deposit of the differential amount, despite being afforded multiple opportunities. The forfeiture of the security deposit is a consequence expressly contemplated under the contractual stipulations governing the tender process. 11. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and also the circumstances present that the petitioner never had any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, the order passed is totally unsustainable. The impugned order of blacklisting passed against the petitioner is therefore quashed. 9 12. For remaining claims, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, if so advised. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved