1 2026:CGHC:21565-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2310 of 2026 M/s Pearl India Marketing Services Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory/representative, Having Its Office At Plot No. F-281, Behind Gumber Petrol Pump, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002 2 - Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (Creda) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Creda, Vip Road, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492006 3 - Superintendent Engineer Re-1, Creda, Vip Road, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492006 4 - Executive Engineer Re-V, Creda, Vip Road, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492006 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Ms. Akriti Singh, Advocate (through virtual mode) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.12 10:48:05 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 08/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026 bearing No. 562/आर.ई.-05/पीएम-जन्मन/2026-27 issued by respondent-CREDA, whereby the petitioner-company has been blacklisted “ ” आगाम आदेश तक , i.e., until further orders. Challenge has also been made to the connected order dated 20.04.2026 bearing No. 563/आर.ई.-05/पीएम-जन्मन/2026-27, whereby the work order relating to 753 unstarted Solar Home Light Systems out of total 1490 systems has been cancelled. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs: “A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026, bearing No. 562/आर.ई.-05/पीएम- जन्म/2026-27, issued by Respondent-CREDA, whereby the Petitioner has again been blacklisted “ ” आगाम आदेश तक ; B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the connected work- 3 order cancellation order dated 20.04.2026, bearing No. 563/आर.ई.-05/पीएम-जन्म/2026-27, whereby CREDA has cancelled the work order in respect of 753 unstarted Solar Home Light Systems; C. Hold that the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026, being indefinite, open-ended, non-speaking and disproportionate, is arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 2677/2025; D. Call for the entire records relating to issuance of the impugned orders dated 20.04.2026, including the approval note-sheets, decision- making file, alleged show-cause material, consideration of the Petitioner’s reply, and approval of the competent authority; E. Grant any other relief/order/direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-CREDA had floated Tender No.155945 dated 10.07.2024 for design, supply, installation and commissioning of Solar Home Lighting Systems under the PM- JANMAN Scheme. The petitioner participated in the tender process and was declared successful bidder. Thereafter, work orders were issued in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the tender conditions, the petitioner submitted sample systems along with NABL-accredited laboratory reports, which were duly scrutinized and approved by CREDA vide communication dated 4 21.10.2024. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner proceeded with installation of the systems in conformity with the approved samples and the applicable MNRE guidelines. Subsequently, certain communications were issued by CREDA raising objections with regard to the technical configuration of the installed systems, particularly relating to cell configuration and mounting structure. The petitioner submitted replies disputing the allegations and asserting that the installations were in conformity with the approved sample and tender specifications. ******* Earlier, respondent-CREDA had passed an order dated 05.05.2025 blacklisting the petitioner and thereafter forfeited the EMD vide order dated 13.05.2025. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in WPC No.2677/2025. This Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 set aside the blacklisting order principally on the ground that the same was indefinite/open-ended and passed without proper compliance of the principles of natural justice, while reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents issued a communication dated 12.12.2025 directing rectification of alleged deficiencies. The petitioner submitted reply dated 29.12.2025 denying the allegations and also requested the respondents to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism under Clause 25 of the tender conditions. However, thereafter the respondents have again passed the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026 blacklisting the petitioner “ ” आगाम आदेश तक and also cancelled the work order relating to 753 unstarted systems, which has led to filing of the present petition. 5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned blacklisting order suffers from the very same defect for which the earlier blacklisting order dated 05.05.2025 had already been set aside by this Court in WPC No.2677/2025. It is argued that despite specific observations made by this Court requiring issuance of a proper show- cause notice specifying the proposed duration and grounds of debarment, the respondents have again imposed an indefinite and open-ended blacklisting “until further orders”, which is ex facie unsustainable in law. Learned counsel would further submit that no proper show-cause notice proposing blacklisting for a specified duration was ever issued to the petitioner and the communication dated 12.12.2025 was merely a rectification notice and not a notice proposing debarment. It is further contended that the impugned order is non-speaking, arbitrary and disproportionate and does not deal with the petitioner’s specific defence that the systems installed were based upon the very sample approved by CREDA itself. Learned counsel would also submit that the issues involved are essentially contractual and technical in nature and are amenable to adjudication under the contractual dispute resolution mechanism and, therefore, the drastic action of blacklisting could not have been resorted to in such a mechanical manner. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned action and submit that the petitioner failed to comply with the technical specifications prescribed under the tender conditions and installed systems contrary to the approved standards. It is contended that repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner 6 to rectify the deficiencies, however, the petitioner failed to take corrective steps within the stipulated period. Learned counsel would further submit that since the petitioner committed serious breach affecting implementation of the PM-JANMAN Scheme, respondent- CREDA was justified in taking coercive action including cancellation of remaining work and blacklisting of the petitioner. It is also argued that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner through various communications and replies submitted by the petitioner were duly considered before passing the impugned order. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the records of the case with utmost circumspection. 8. It is not in dispute that earlier blacklisting order dated 05.05.2025 passed against the petitioner was already set aside by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 passed in WPC No.2677/2025 principally on the ground that the said order was indefinite/open-ended and passed without proper adherence to the requirements of due process. While granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh, this Court had specifically observed that any fresh action ought to be taken strictly in accordance with law and after issuance of proper show-cause notice specifying the proposed duration and grounds of debarment. 9. From perusal of the material available on record, particularly the communication dated 12.12.2025, this Court finds that the said communication was essentially in the nature of a notice directing rectification of alleged deficiencies and cannot be construed as a 7 proper show-cause notice proposing blacklisting for a definite period. The impugned order dated 20.04.2026 again blacklists the petitioner “ ” आगाम आदेश तक , i.e., until further orders, without prescribing any determinative period of debarment. 10. In the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos. 30 and 31 that :- “30 We are conscious of the following words of wisdom expressed by this Court through the pen of Krishna Iyer, J. in Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256 : (SCC pp. 258 & 262, paras 1, 13 & 14) “1. If the jurisprudence of remedies were understood and applied from the perspective of social efficaciousness, the problem raised in this appeal would not have ended the erroneous way it did in the High Court. Judges must never forget that every law has a social purpose and engineering process without appreciating which justice to the law cannot be done. Here, the socio-legal situation we are faced with is a colliery, an explosive, an accident, luckily not lethal, caused by violation of a regulation and consequential cancellation of the certificate of the delinquent shot-firer, eventually quashed by the High Court, for processual solecisms, by a writ of certiorari. * * * 13. …... Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a judicial 8 cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt – that is the conscience of the matter. 14. …....we cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artefact. Nor can we fit into a rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity.” 31. When it comes to the action of blacklisting which is termed as “civil death” it would be difficult to accept the proposition that without even putting the noticee to such a contemplated action and giving him a chance to show cause as to why such an action be not taken, final order can be passed blacklisting such a person only on the premise that this is one of the actions so stated in the provisions of NIT.” 11. Further, in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 70, it was held that the blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. It creates; a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions. The blacklists are 9 “instruments of coercion”. Therefore, in such a matter fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put to the blacklist. 12. In Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, W.T. Project, BSNL, (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 731 Hon’ble the Supreme Court has further held that though the authority possesses power to blacklist, the period of debarment must be proportionate and the order must satisfy the test of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the present case, the impugned order does not indicate any specific period of debarment and again imposes an indefinite blacklisting “until further orders”. The impugned order also does not disclose any proportionality analysis nor does it demonstrate due consideration of the petitioner’s defence that the systems supplied were based upon the sample approved by the respondents themselves. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned blacklisting order suffers from violation of the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments as well as non-compliance of the directions issued earlier by this Court in WPC No.2677/2025. 14. So far as the connected order dated 20.04.2026 cancelling the work order relating to 753 unstarted Solar Home Light Systems is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the said action essentially arises out of contractual obligations and disputes relating to execution of work, technical compliance and performance conditions. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available 10 to it in accordance with law including contractual dispute resolution mechanism, if so advised. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said part of the impugned action in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 15. Consequently, the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026 bearing No. 562/आर.ई.-05/पीएम-जन्मन/2026-27 issued by respondent- CREDA is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after issuance of proper show-cause notice clearly indicating the proposed action, proposed duration of debarment and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 16. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the present writ petition stands partly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved