Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19248-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3926 of 2026 Ms. Dumka Tent House, through its partner Hari Mohan Krishna, aged about 44 years, son of Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of Quarter Para, Sonwadangal, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District - Dumka, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka having its office at Collectorate Building Dumka, P.O. & P.S. – Dumka, District – Dumka. 2. The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Dumka, having its office at Dumka, P.O. & P.S. – Dumka, District – Dumka. … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. --------- 02/Dated: 01.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 08.05.2026 blacklisting the petitioner for three years. 3. Mr Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in this case the show-cause notice was only for the initiation of proceedings to blacklist the petitioner. He submitted that such a notice cannot be regarded as a specific show-cause notice to blacklist the petitioner. He submits that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Innovatiview India Ltd. v. Jharkhand Public Services Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3996, interfered with the action of blacklisting. 4. Mr Shresth Gautam, without prejudice, submits that the tent which the petitioner had erected during the Sawan festivities at Dumka Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19248-DB collapsed due to the unprecedented rains. He submitted that for this “act of God” or “force majeure”, the petitioner cannot be held responsible or blacklisted. Mr Shresth Gautam submitted that the tent was constructed in terms of the prescribed specifications and was also certified by the Engineers accordingly. In such circumstances, he submitted that the order of blacklisting was unjustified. In any event, he submitted that the blacklisting for a period of three years is quite disproportionate. 5. Mr Vibhor Mayank, the learned A.C. to A.G., submitted that a specific show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing it about the proposed action of blacklisting. He submitted that the petitioner filed a response to the show-cause notice without raising any objections, but by offering vague excuses. He submitted that the petitioner, by erecting a tent without any iron and steel pipes, severely endangered the public safety. In such circumstances, Mr Vibhor Mayank submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the blacklisting period was also entirely proportionate to the facts and circumstances of this matter. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 7. In this case, a show-cause notice dated 15.07.2025 was admittedly issued to the petitioner, calling upon it to submit its explanation. The show-cause notice specifically informed the petitioner about the proposal to blacklist the petitioner in the event the petitioner’s explanation was not found to be satisfactory. Therefore, the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19248-DB argument about there being no specific show-cause notice evincing an intention to blacklist the petitioner cannot be accepted in this matter. The petitioner, by deliberately misconstruing the terms of the specific show-cause notice, cannot attempt to try and fit his case into the facts that were involved in the case of Innovatiview India Ltd. v. Jharkhand Public Services Commission (supra). 8. In that case, the show-cause notice was not specific but was merely tentative. The show-cause notice in that case did not evince any clear intention to blacklist the petitioner, and in that context the Division Bench found fault with it. The factual situation in the present case is therefore not comparable. 9. Further, we note that the petitioner responded to the show-cause notice. The response is quite vague. However, it does not suggest that the petitioner did not understand that the action of blacklisting was proposed against it. 10. In the case of UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a show-cause notice that must precede the action of blacklisting must spell out clearly, or its contents which be such that can be clearly inferred therefrom that there is an intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the noticee. In this case, upon perusing the show cause notice dated 15.07.2025, apart from the fact that there is clear reference to blacklisting the petitioner in case the petitioner’s explanation is not found to be satisfactory, the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19248-DB notice, even as it is being incorrectly interpreted by the petitioner, clearly expresses an intention to blacklist the petitioner. 11. The contention that the accident leading to the collapse of the tent took place on account of unprecedented rains or that the petitioner had complied with the contractual terms and conditions does not appear to be correct. In any event, considering the summary nature of the extraordinary jurisdiction that we exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution, such issues cannot normally be adjudicated in such proceedings. In these proceedings, we are more concerned with the decision-making process than the ultimate decision. We detect no error in the decision-making process as such. 12. Further, since the contention has been raised, we note that the petitioner was clearly aware that the festival was during the rainy season and therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have taken all safeguards. The impugned order clearly says that the petitioner did not even bother to construct the tent by using iron and steel pipes. The petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice was completely vague and did not even assert that the petitioner had in fact used iron and steel pipes for constructing the tent. There are also issues of the petitioner failing to adopt safety standards as were prescribed. There are issues about providing adequate drainage around the tents so that there is no water stagnation. 13. Judicial notice may be taken that there is a large crowd at such festivals and that tents are erected to accommodate thousands of Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19248-DB people. Constructing any tent with substandard materials could surely pose a danger to public safety. In this case, the fact that the tent collapsed has not been denied, as it was undeniable. Blaming the rain alone can hardly provide a sufficient explanation. It is not as if this was a case of unseasonal rain. The defence now raised by the petitioner is more an excuse than a cogent reason. 14. So far, with respect to the issue of disproportionality, we note that, fortunately, there was no great tragedy resulting from the collapse of the tent. However, the possibility of such a tragedy could never have been ruled out. As noted earlier, there were thousands of people who fortunately survived the collapse of the tent. Besides, this is a case where the petitioner has not even established that the tent was put up after following all the prescribed norms, including the norms relating to safety and prevention of water stagnation. 15. Considering the magnitude of the lapse, we do not think that the blacklisting order or its term is disproportionate. 16. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs. Pending IAs, if any, in this petition will not survive and are 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