1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5056 of 2026 Decided on: 14.07.2026 M/s SA Associates …..Petitioner Versus Bhakra Beas Management and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Ram Krishna, Advocate (through V.C.). For the Respondents: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks to quash the report dated 09.02.2023 furnished by the committee constituted by the respondent recommending blacklisting of the petitioner firm from carrying out future works with the respondents Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) pursuant to which, petitioner was blacklisted by the respondents on 05.04.2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. It is not in dispute that on 09.02.2023 a committee constituted by the respondents, recommended blacklisting of the petitioner for carrying out future works in entire BBMB (respondent). The 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 aforesaid recommendation of the committee was accepted by the respondent- BBMB on 05.04.2023. The petitioner is with the grievance that it has been ordered to be blacklisted without even issuing a notice much less show cause notice, specific pleadings of the petition in this regard in para-6 (VIII) as under:- “Since, the petitioner was never informed by the respondents about the formation of committee of its findings qua blacklisting. The petitioner participated in the subsequent tender No.9506/NIT- 10/2024-25 but his tender was not accepted being the blacklisted firm. The copy of letter dated 05.04.2023 regarding intimation of blacklisting as reason for not accepting the tender of petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4.” Respondents in their reply have not denied the factum of petitioner -Contractor having not been associated in any inquiry leading to his blacklisting. Relevant portion from the reply is as follows:- “That contents of para as 5(VIII) as averred are not admitted to be correct hence are denied. It is submitted that committee constituted by the Bhakra Beas Management Board head office regarding the tender and its execution, was an internal departmental committee and the officers of the BBMB were its constituent members, thus the contractor was not associated in the enquiry. In any case, issuance of Annexure P-4 is not denied whereby petitioner was informed that M/s SA Associates has been blacklisted for all future works related to BBMB, vide letter bearing number 6296/ NIT-4/2017-18 dated 25.10.2023, whereby letter dated 05.04.2023 was also enclosed. True copy of letter dated 25.10.2023 is attached herewith as Annexure-RA.” 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not aware about it having been blacklisted. Neither any notice had been issued to it in that regard nor even in the Civil Suit preferred by the petitioner against the respondents for recovering of an amount, the respondents had informed the petitioner about its such blacklisting in the written statement. Be that as it may, it is well settled that in context of blacklisting of a person or an entity, unambiguous show-cause notice is crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatisation that accrues to the entity being blacklisted. (Reference: UMC Technologies Private Limited versus Food Corporation of India and another.2) There being no dispute on facts about petitioner’s blacklisting having not been preceded by any notice much less show-cause notice, respondents’ decision to blacklist the petitioner as conveyed in office letter dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set-aside. Respondents, however, are at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 14, 2026 Judge yogesh 2(2021) 2 SCC 551.