2026:JHHC:19052-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2714 of 2021 M/s Maa Paremeshwari Constructions through its Proprietor- Rukmini Devi, aged about 50 years, daughter of Late Nathun Paswan, resident of Shiv Durga Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, Distt. Ranchi 2. Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand-cum-C.E.O; JDRRDA, FFP Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 3. Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 4. Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Ranchi, Engineering Bhawan, Kutchery Road, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 5. Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla, District- Gumla; 6. Engineer in Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum- Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, Engineering Bhawan, Kutchery Road, P.O.-GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. --------- 12/Dated: 30.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner now presses this petition only insofar as the challenge to the black-listing order dated 27.09.2016 is concerned. 3. Mr Ajit Kumar submits that the impugned black-listing order dated 27.09.2016, apart from being made in violation of principles 2026:JHHC:19052-DB -2- of natural justice and fair play, purports to indefinitely black list the petitioner. He submits that this is impermissible given the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors. {(2014) 14 SCC 731}. He also refers to M/s MAR’S Developers and suppliers Vs. The State of Odisha & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7861 of 2023), disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04th August 2025 in support of the proposition that there can be no indefinite black-listing or debarment. 4. Mr Vibhor Mayank, the learned AC to AG submits that principles of natural justice were duly followed in this case. He submitted that, in fact, the petitioner had challenged the previous termination order and had been granted liberty to represent against the same. He submitted that, in the representation, the petitioner had also raised a grievance regarding the issue of debarment/blacklisting. He submitted that the petitioner failed to complete the works awarded within the prescribed period. Despite the opportunities, the petitioner failed to complete the works and therefore cannot now complain of any failure of natural justice. 5. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 6. We have perused the impugned black-listing order dated 27.09.2016. Even if we do not adjudicate the contentious issue of compliance with natural justice, we find that the impugned order 2026:JHHC:19052-DB -3- dated 27.09.2016 purports to indefinitely blacklist or debar the petitioner. 7. In the case of M/s Kulja Industries Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that debarment is recognized and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. However, what is notable is that the “debarment” is never permanent, and the period of debarment invariably depends on the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractors. 8. Similarly, in the case of M/s MAR’S Developers and Suppliers (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by following M/s Kulja Industries Limited (supra), interfered with the debarment order dated 01.03.2023, which had not specified the period for its operation. 9. In the present case, as noted earlier, the impugned debarment/black-listing order dated 27.09.2016 does not specify the period for which the black-listing/debarment was to operate. On this ground itself, the impugned order warrants interference. 10. Normally, after interference with such orders, the matter is remitted to the respondents to decide the period of blacklisting/debarment. 11. However, in the present case, the blacklisting/debarment has continued since 27.09.2016. This, according to us, more than 2026:JHHC:19052-DB -4- suffices the objective of debarment/black listing, which, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors. Therefore, no purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the respondents to decide on the period of black-listing or debarment in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned blacklisting/debarment order dated 27.09.2016 and declare that no longer be operative from today onwards. 13. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 14. The interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 30.06.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/AKT Uploaded on 02.07.2026