2026:JHHC:19305-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4808 of 2018 M/s. Varun Enterprises, a Proprietorship Firm through its Proprietor – Rajesh Kesari, S/o Sri Y.P. Keshri, R/o HIG Plot No. 8, Housing Colony, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad 2. The Director, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 3. The Chairman-cum-DSW Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 4. The Registrar, IIT, ISM, Dhanbad ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No. 07 Dated: 02.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta for the respondents. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the decision recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the committee constituted to consider the case of blacklisting of the petitioner dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure-7, page-37 of paper book). 4. The decision records that the committee has recommended that the petitioner may be blacklisted for all future procurement of the Institute on a permanent basis with the approval of the competent authority. The committee also 2026:JHHC:19305-DB 2 recommended that a notice to this effect be issued, circulated to all concerned, and hosted on the Institute website for information. 5. To our query as to whether the recommendation recorded in the minutes of the meeting has resulted in any formal decision of the competent authority, we were informed that there is no further decision by any competent authority. However, we were also informed that based on such recommendation, the blacklisting of the petitioner was made operative. 6. Accordingly, we are constrained to proceed on the basis that the decision recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 09.10.2017 was itself the final decision to blacklist the petitioner indefinitely or permanently. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned decision was not preceded by any show cause notice and further, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 731, Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 1 SCC 804 and M/s. Mar’s Developers and Suppliers Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7861 of 2023] decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 2026:JHHC:19305-DB 3 04.08.2025, such permanent blacklisting is impermissible. 8. Mr A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents, defended the impugned decision on the grounds set out in the minutes. He submitted that in this case, the petitioner admitted it was unable to supply students’ blazers in accordance with the specification in the purchase order and removed all the supplied blazers. He submitted that considering this admission and the petitioner's attitude, it would not be correct to say that there was any non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. 9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 10. There is no record of the blacklisting decision being preceded by issue of any specific show cause notice to the petitioner. The issue of such notice, being a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice and fair play, was a must. 11. In the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 105, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a valid show cause notice must not only be issued, but the same must clearly indicate the precise action proposed, including blacklisting, either expressly or by necessary implication. Since blacklisting carries serious civil and commercial consequences, failure to issue a show cause notice or to 2026:JHHC:19305-DB 4 specify such proposed action in the notice deprives the affected party of a meaningful opportunity to respond. 12. Accordingly, for failure to issue a specific show-cause notice, the impugned decision is vulnerable and liable to be set aside. 13. The second infirmity with the impugned decision is that the same blacklist the petitioner for an indefinite term or, rather, in this case, on a permanent basis. This is also impermissible given the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries Limited (supra). In paragraph-25 of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: - “25. Suffice it to say that ‘debarment’ is recognised 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. What is notable is that the ‘debarment’ is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.” 14. The above proposition about debarment or blacklisting never being permanent and the period of debarment invariably depending upon the nature of the charge against the erring contractor, was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mar’s Developers 2026:JHHC:19305-DB 5 and Suppliers (supra). 15. Therefore, following the above precedents, the impugned decision is liable to be set aside on the ground that it purports to blacklist the petitioner permanently. Such a decision is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred decisions. 16. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the impugned decision dated 09.10.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. The rule is made absolute, and this petition is disposed of in the above terms. 18. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 02, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 03.07.2026