1 2026:CGHC:21232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2158 of 2026 Tejeshwar Singh Rajput S/o Suresh Singh Rajput. Aged About 34 Years R/o -Kobiya Ward No. -10, Rani Laxmi Bai Ward- Bemetara -P.S. Bemetara District- Bemetara C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited -4th, Floor, Excise Bhawan, Labhandi -Raipur -District -Raipur C.G. 3 - General Manager Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited -1st Floor Room No.-22, Excise Office Collectorate -Raipur District- Raripur C.G. 4 - The District Manager (CSMCL) Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited Bemetara District- Bemetara C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Malay Shrivsatava, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.06 17:41:24 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.05.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the action of the respondents in reflecting the petitioner’s name as a blacklisted employee on their web-portal (Annexure P-5), without issuance of any show cause notice or affording a proper opportunity of hearing, thereby rendering the impugned action arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remove the name of petitioner from the impugned black list of web-portal of the respondents (Annexure P-5) with immediate effect. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents in reflecting the name of the petitioner as a blacklisted employee on the official web-portal (Annexure P- 5) is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of the settled principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no show-cause notice was ever issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to taking such drastic action entailing civil consequences. It is further submitted that the very basis of the alleged action, i.e., registration of FIR No. 66/2023 under Section 3 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, stood obliterated upon culmination of trial, wherein the competent criminal court, vide judgment dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-2), has acquitted the petitioner of all charges, and thus, continuance of the petitioner’s name in the blacklist even thereafter is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law. 3. Learned counsel would contend that despite repeated oral requests and a formal representation dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), the respondents have failed to rectify the error and have mechanically rejected the petitioner’s claim vide communication dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), without assigning any cogent or legally tenable reasons. It is further submitted that such arbitrary blacklisting has seriously prejudiced the petitioner, as it has deprived him of participating in employment opportunities under the Excise Department and allied agencies, thereby causing irreparable loss to his livelihood and reputation. 4. Placing reliance on the principle that blacklisting cannot be resorted to without adherence to due process, learned counsel submits that the impugned action deserves to be quashed. It is also contended that in an identical matter, this Court in WPC No.6615 of 2025 vide order dated 27.04.2026, directed correction of a similar error, pursuant to which the concerned employee’s name was removed from the blacklist (Annexure P-6), and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to parity. 4 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the impugned action cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal, as the name of the petitioner came to be reflected in the web- portal on the basis of the records available with the department at the relevant point of time, including registration of FIR No. 66/2023 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. It is contended that the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner in the said criminal case was never brought to the knowledge of the Corporation through any proper or official channel, and therefore, no occasion arose for the respondents to reconsider or review the status of the petitioner in the web-portal. It is further submitted that the respondents have acted bonafide and strictly in accordance with the administrative records and internal communications, and in absence of any formal intimation along with authenticated documents regarding acquittal, the Corporation cannot be faulted for continuation of the petitioner’s name in the said list. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the competent authority with all relevant documents, including the judgment of acquittal, for appropriate consideration, and without exhausting such remedy, the present petition is premature and not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the admitted position that the petitioner has already 5 been acquitted by the competent criminal Court and that his representation dated 29.05.2025 seeking removal of his name from the blacklisted category is pending consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondents No. 2 to 4 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. It is directed that the said respondents shall examine the petitioner’s representation dated 29.05.2025 objectively and take into account all relevant materials, including the judgment of acquittal dated 22.11.2024 as the very basis of blacklisting is due to registration of case under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. If deemed necessary, the petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing a reasoned and speaking order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a reasonable period from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order preferably within a period of 45 days. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, and the competent authority shall take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-d/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh