2026:JHHC:18991-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2404 of 2022 Md. Jasimuddin Ansari, aged about 48 years, son of Chhotu Mian, resident of Village Surhi, P.O. Surhi, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department, having office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. 4. Director, Department of Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department, having office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 5. District Supply Officer, B.S. City, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. 6. Block Supply Officer, B.S. City, Bokaro, P.O. B.S. City, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro. 7. Block Supply Officer, Kasmar, P.O. Kasmar, P.S. Kasmar, District Bokaro. 8. Block Supply Officer, Gomia, P.O. Gomia, P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro. 9. Block Supply Officer, Nawadih, P.O. Nawadih, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro. 10. Assistant Godown Manager, B.S. City Godown, P.O. B.S. City, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro. 11. Assistant Godown Manager, Kasmar Godown, P.O. Kasmar, P.S. Kasmar, District Bokaro. 12. Assistant Godown Manager, Gomia Godown, P.O. Gomia, P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro. 13. Assistant Godown Manager, Nawadih Godown, P.O. Nawadih, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate. Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C.-IV. --------- 05/Dated: 30.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2026:JHHC:18991-DB -2- 2. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, restricts the challenge in this petition to the issue of the petitioner’s blacklisting vide the impugned order dated 23.04.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. 4. This petition challenges the order dated 23.04.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period. 5. The impugned blacklisting order purports to blacklist the petitioner for an indefinite period. This is impermissible given the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 731 and M/s. Mar’s Developers and Suppliers v. The State of Odisha & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7861 of 2023, decided on 4th August 2025. 6. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in terms of Clauses 45.2 and 45.3 of the tender documents, blacklisting would be permissible only for a period of two years. The clauses referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner indeed indicate that blacklisting could be for a period of two years and not beyond. 7. The impugned order to the extent it blacklists the petitioner is hereby set aside, and the blacklisting is declared as inoperative. 8. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms and to the above extent without any order for costs. 2026:JHHC:18991-DB -3- 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. Insofar as the other issues that have not been now pressed, we clarify that the Petitioner would have the liberty to agitate the same before the alternate forum. All contentions of all parties in that regard are kept open. 10. Pending I.As., 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