(2026: JHHC:22279-DB) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4507 of 2026 M/s Gupta Construction, a proprietorship concern having its office at Village- Ratu Chatti, P.O & P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand- 835222 through its proprietor- Shri Birendra Kumar Gupta, aged about 48 years, son of Ram Lagan Sahu, resident of Chatti Ratu, P.O. & P.S.- Ratu, Ratu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835222. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited (JSBCCL), through its Managing Director, having its registered office at Building Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.& P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. 3. The Executive Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited (JSBCCL), having its office at Building Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.& P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. 4. The Manager-cum-Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited (JSBCCL), Project Implementation Unit (PIU), Old Sadar Hospital Campus, Pokhra Chowk, P.O.- Dumka, P.S.- Dumka Town, District- Dumka, Jharkhand-8114101. … ... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate Mr Sanchit Sinha, Advocate Mr Akchansh Kishore, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 4 : Ms Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate ----- 03 /Dated: 28.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges communication dated 26.06.2023 which, according to the petitioner, was issued without any show cause notice and further, it purports to debar/blacklist the petitioner for some indeterminate period. 4. The impugned communication dated 26.06.2023, inter alia, grants the petitioner an opportunity to complete the work at hand and then provides that (2026: JHHC:22279-DB) 2 until such work is completed, the petitioner would be debarred from bidding for any other tenders issued by the respondents herein. 5. After the issuance of the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 and because the petitioner did not complete the works, the respondents, by their communication dated 19.06.2025, have terminated the contract. 6. Mr Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, now points out that with the termination of the contract, there is no question of the petitioner completing the works and, as a consequence, this debarment/blacklisting order would operate in perpetuity, which is impermissible under the law. He submitted that there were good reasons not to complete the works. In this petition, we cannot go into these issues. 7. Ms Khaleda Rashmi, Learned counsel for the respondents, points out that despite several opportunities, the petitioner failed to complete the work. She submitted that in such circumstances, there was nothing unreasonable on the part of the respondents to inform the petitioner that the petitioner’s bids in future would not be considered, until the work in hand is duly completed. She submitted that there was no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action of the respondents. 8. In this case, the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 is slightly peculiar. In any event, even if we hold that the debarment in this case was only until the petitioner completes the works in hand, now there is no question of the petitioner completing the works in hand because the contract itself has been terminated by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order, which would now have the effect of operating indefinitely, would warrant interference. 9. Similarly, we have perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and various annexures. From the same, including, upon perusing (2026: JHHC:22279-DB) 3 the communication dated 22.09.2022, we are not willing to accept that the impugned order was made after a specific show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner about the consequences of non-compliance. 10. We note that the communication dated 22.09.2022 was issued by the Manager-cum-Executive Engineer and stated that, in case of non-compliance by the petitioner, a recommendation would be made for debarment of the petitioner in future contracts. In contrast, the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 has been made by the Executive Director of the respondent-Corporation. 11. Accordingly, for the above two reasons, while we quash the impugned communication dated 26.06.2023, we clarify that such quashing will not in any manner preclude the respondents, if they so desire, from issuing a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and, upon considering the response, if any, furnished by the petitioner, to take such action as it may be advised in law. 12. The impugned order is interfered with only on the ground of breach of natural justice and the peculiar circumstances arising from the termination of the contract. This means that we have not examined the petitioner's conduct on the merits, and all parties' contentions in this regard are kept explicitly open. 13. This petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned communication dated 26.06.2023, but by reserving the above-referred liberty to the respondents and by keeping open all contentions of all parties. 14. Rule is made partly absolute to the above extent without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 28, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR / uploaded on 29.07.2026