Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19147-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 174 of 2025 Interlink Coal Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Rahul Raj, aged about 37 years, S/o. Rajendra Kumar Singh, having its registered office at “Dharameshwaram” Shukla Colony, HBinoo, P.O + P.S- Hinoo, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834002. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O + P.S Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand. Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P .O + P.S- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, D.C Office, Pakur, P.O + P.S + District- Pakur, Jharkhand-816107. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, P.O + P.S + District- Pakur Jharkhand -816107. 5. The Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, Pakur, P.O P.S + District- Pakur Jharkhand-816107. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Alok Anand, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Amitesh Kr. Geasen, A.C. to A.A.G.-1A --------- 04/Dated: 01.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave is granted to amend the petition to challenge the corrigendum dated 06.07.2025. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19147-DB 3. This petition challenges the order dated 03.03.2023 as amended by further order dated 06.07.2025 blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years with effect from 03.03.2023. 4. Initially, by office order dated 03.03.2023, the petitioner was barred for an indefinite term. However, by a further order/corrigendum dated 06.07.2025, the respondents, after taking cognisance of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the decision in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731, reduced the period of blacklisting to three years with effect from 03.03.2023. 5. Thus, as of today, the period of blacklisting has already expired. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, expresses the apprehension that the impugned blacklisting orders might be used to debar the petitioner for any future contract. 6. Now that the term of blacklisting has already expired, there is no question of using the impugned orders for debarring or blacklisting the petitioner for any future contracts. Otherwise, at least prima facie, such action of blacklisting/debarring could have the effect of blacklisting or debarring in perpetuity or for some indefinite term. 7. In Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra) and B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that debarring or blacklisting cannot be imposed for an indefinite or indeterminate period. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19147-DB 8. Therefore, now that the blacklisting period has already expired and we have clarified that there is no question of the impugned blacklisting orders being used to once again blacklist or debar the petitioner in future, we are satisfied that the grievance of the petitioner stands substantially redressed. 9. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition in the above terms without any order for costs. 10. Pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 01, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 02.07.2026