2026:JHHC:19213-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5983 of 2024 M/s Shilpi Construction and Engineering Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, having its Registered Office at Sirsiya, Near Block Gate, P.O. Sirsiya, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, Jharkhand 815301 through its authorized signatory namely Upendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 70 years, son of Late Koleshwar Sharma, resident of Near Block Office, Village Sirsiya, P.O. – Sirsiya, P.S.- Giridih, District - Giridih, State - Jharkhand - 815301. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834002; 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834002; 4. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834002; 5. The Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834002 ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. --------- 07/Dated: 01.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, in the context of the impugned blacklisting order, submits that the petitioner now presses only the contention of disproportionality of the term of blacklisting/debarment, which, in the present case, is five years. He further submits that, in the context of reliefs other than those concerning the issue of blacklisting, leave may be granted to pursue them before any alternative forum. 2026:JHHC:19213-DB -2- 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the term for which a contractor is blacklisted or debarred should be commensurate with the charge that is levelled against such contractor. This means that the doctrine of proportionality would be attracted to such a situation. 4. In the case of M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors. {(2014) 14 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there should be objectivity and transparency while determining the period for which a blacklisting should be effective. In fact, in the said matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon noticing that there were no guidelines for determining the period for which blacklisting should be effective, issued directions to formulate broad guidelines to be followed in such cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that while it may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate all types of offences and acts of misdemeanor, or violations of contractual obligations by a contractor, the respondents may do so as far as possible to reduce if not totally eliminate arbitrariness in the exercise of power vested in it and inspire confidence in the fairness of the order which the competent authority may pass against a defaulting contractor. 6. Considering the above aspects and the limited contention now pressed before us, we permit the petitioner to represent to the respondents, i.e., the 2nd respondent, for a reduction of the term for which the blacklisting has been made effective. Mr Rahul Kumar states that such representation would be made within a week from today. 2026:JHHC:19213-DB -3- 7. Further, we direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of such representation in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kulja Industries Limited (supra), as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks of the receipt of the petitioner’s representation. The 2nd respondent must communicate its decision to the petitioner within this period of four weeks. 8. As regards the other reliefs prayed for in this petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to agitate such grievances before the appropriate forum as may be available under the law. All contentions of all parties regarding such other grievances are left open because we have not adjudicated upon the same in this petition. 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 10. Pending I.As., if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 01.07.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/AKT Uploaded on 03.07.2026