Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18996-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1867 of 2023 Raider Security Services Private Limited, (A Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013), having its Registered Office at Malti Complex, Opposite Sai Nath University, Booty More, P.O. Booty, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-834009, through its Director, namely, Arun Kumar Sinha, aged bout 47 years, son of Late Naresh Prasad Sinha, resident of Anuj-58, Gautam Green City, Getlatu, P.O. Nevri Vikas, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-835217. ... PETITIONER Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, ESB Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 834004 (Jharkhand). 2. Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, ESB Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi - 834004 (Jharkhand). 3. Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, ESB Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi - 834004 (Jharkhand). 4. Jharkhand Agency for promotion of Information Technology (An Autonomous body under Department of Information Technology, Government of Jharkhand), through its Chief Executive Officer, having its office at Ground Floor, Engineer’s Hostel-I, Near Golchakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, PIN-834004 (Jharkhand). ... RESPONDENTS --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr Shailandra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr Anish Lal, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. --------- Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18996-DB 16/Dated: 30.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31.03.2023 issued by the State of Jharkhand. 4. The impugned order dated 31.03.2023 is a composite order terminating the agreement with the petitioner dated 29.10.2021 and further, blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period. 5. The agreement dated 29.10.2021 was to operate for a term of two years, i.e. up to 28th October 2023. However, the State is said to have extended this term, or rather continued with the petitioner, for a further period of two years, and thereafter until the fresh tender process is finalised. 6. Since the original term of the agreement dated 29th October 2021 has expired, we do not propose to adjudicate the disputes regarding the termination of the said agreement. However, we clarify that all contentions of all parties in that regard remain open for agitation before the appropriate forum by taking appropriate proceedings. 7. Accordingly, this petition survives regarding the petitioner’s relief against the blacklisting portion of the impugned order dated 31.03.2023. 8. We have heard and evaluated the rival contentions on the above surviving issue. We have also perused the record and the pleadings. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18996-DB 9. The blacklisting order does not indicate the period for which the petitioner is to stand blacklisted. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731 and Mar's Developers & Suppliers v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3327. 10. Further, Mr Gadodia has submitted that the blacklisting order was issued without any specific and separate show-cause notice to the petitioner regarding the blacklisting. He submitted that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105, specific show-cause notice is a must. 11. Mr Vibhor Mayank, the learned A.C. to A.G., submitted that in this case a show-cause notice dated 31.01.2023 was issued to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner replied to the show- cause notice, and that it was only after due consideration of the petitioner’s reply that the impugned blacklisting order dated 31.03.2023 was passed. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no breach of principles of natural justice or fair play. 12. Mr Vibhor Mayank further submitted that in matters of breach of principles of natural justice, it is incumbent upon the party raising such a plea to plead and prove prejudice. There are no such pleadings or proof of any prejudice. He, therefore, submitted that Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18996-DB the plea of breach of natural justice cannot be accepted in the present case. 13. In the case of Gorkha Security Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that blacklisting must be preceded by a show-cause notice, and the law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not require much amplification. The necessity of complying with the principles of natural justice by affording the opportunity to the person against whom the blacklisting action is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatising and bars such a person from participating in Government tenders, thereby precluding him from the award of Government contracts. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the fundamental purpose behind serving a show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he must meet. This would require a statement of imputations detailing the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he has an opportunity to rebut them. Another requirement is the nature of the action proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee can point out that the proposed action is not warranted in this case, even if the complained-of defaults/breaches are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18996-DB blacklisting, this requirement becomes even more imperative having regard to the fact that it is the harshest possible action. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to fulfill the requirements of the principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements, viz: (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. 16. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a show-cause notice that must precede the action of blacklisting must not only state the materials/grounds on which the action is proposed but also specify the particular penalty/action proposed to be taken. This means that if blacklisting is proposed, the proposal should be specifically stated in the show-cause notice so that the noticee can respond to it. This is, unless, of course, the notice and its surrounding circumstances make it clear that such action of blacklisting was contemplated. 17. The above propositions were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 804, and A.K.G. Construction & Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 520. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18996-DB 18. In the present case, we have perused the show-cause notice dated 31.01.2023. Crucially, this show-cause notice does not refer to the particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. This show- cause notice does not even refer to any proposal to blacklist the petitioner. This omission is quite significant because, due to it, the petitioner was deprived of the reasonable opportunity to submit or establish that the blacklisting was entirely unwarranted, even assuming, without admitting, that the grounds for termination of the agreement may have had some basis. 19. Mr Vibhor Mayank’s argument about prejudice cannot be accepted in such matters. Prejudice is evident because the petitioner has been visited with the civil and evil consequences of blacklisting, without the petitioner being put on notice that such consequence was proposed. That apart, Mr Gadodia pointed out that the petitioner has specifically pleaded and established prejudice in this matter. 20. This is also not a case where the show-cause notice dated 31.01.2023 is reasonably capable of being interpreted as suggesting that blacklisting might be one of the consequences. On a perusal of the show-cause notice, there is no scope to discern any hint of blacklisting. There is also the issue of a consolidated show-cause notice, though we do not propose to decide the same in this case. 21. Therefore, we are satisfied that in this case there was no valid show-cause notice on the aspect of blacklisting of the petitioner. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18996-DB This is an additional ground for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 to the extent it blacklists the petitioner. 22. For all the above reasons, we dispose of this petition by making the following order: (a) The impugned order, insofar as it terminates the agreement dated 29.10.2021, is not adjudicated upon, as the term of this agreement has already expired. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to raise such issue before the appropriate forum by taking out appropriate proceedings. All contentions regarding such termination are kept open. (b) The impugned order dated 31.01.2023, insofar as it blacklists the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. The rule is made absolute to the above extent, and this petition is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs. 24. IAs, if any, pending in this petition, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 30, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 02.07.2026