(2026: JHHC:22554- DB) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5432 of 2026 Samanta Security Intelligence Services Private Ltd., having its registered office at Room No. 205, Shashi Complex, Exhibition Road, Patna, P.O., P.S. Patna & District Patna, through its Director Uday Aditya, aged about 32 years, son of T.N. Singh, Singh Sadan, Road No. 3, Green Park Colony, Mangal Chowk, Khemni Chak, New Jaganpura, P.O. Khemni Chak, P.S. Ramkrishnagar & District Patna (Bihar). ….. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, through its Vice Chancellor, having its office at Kanke, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke & District Ranchi. 3. The Director Administration, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, having its office at Kanke, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke & District Ranchi. 4. The Assistant Director Administration, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, having its office at Kanke, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke & District Ranchi. 5. The Comptroller, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, having its office at Kanke, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke & District Ranchi. 6. The Purchase Officer, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, having its office at Kanke, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke & District Ranchi. ….. ….. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Ms Tanya Singh, Advocate For the Resp-State : Ms Neeharika Roy Mazumdar, AC to AG For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 6 : Mr Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr Rahul Ranjan, Advocate ----- 03 /Dated: 30.07.2026 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. In this matter, on 28.07.2026, we had made the following order: - “1. Heard Ms Tanya Singh for the petitioner, Mr A. Allam, learned Senior Advocate who appears with Mr Faisal Allam for the respondents 2 to 6 and Ms Niharika Roy Mazumdar, learned A.C to A.G for the State. (2026: JHHC:22554- DB) 2 2. Ms Tanya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned blacklisting order dated 31.05.2025 is vulnerable on two grounds; (i) firstly, the same was not preceded by any precise show-cause notice as is required under the law; and (ii) the impugned order purports to debar the petitioner for an indefinite period which is also impermissible. 3. Mr Allam, learned Senior Advocate submits that specific show- cause was issued and the same would be produced, for which a short adjournment may be granted. 4. At Mr Allam’s request, we post this matter on 30th of July, 2026 High on Board.” 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in this matter. 5. As noted in our order dated 28.07.2026, the challenge in this petition is to the impugned blacklisting order dated 31.05.2025 on the following two grounds: - (i) firstly, the same was not preceded by any precise show-cause notice as is required under the law; and (ii) the impugned order purports to debar the petitioner for an indefinite period, which is also impermissible. 6. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, Mr Amritansh Vats, the learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to show cause notices dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure-4) and 30.01.2025 (Annexure-8) to the writ petition. The show cause notice dated 02.04.2024 is quite not clear and does not express any clear intention for blacklisting of the petitioner. However, the notice dated 30.01.2025 is quite clear and specifically states that the petitioner herein would be blacklisted in case of failure to furnish an explanation within the stipulated period. 7. Accordingly, we find no merit in the first ground raised by Ms Tanya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. (2026: JHHC:22554- DB) 3 8. However, Ms Tanya Singh is on a much better footing when it comes to the second ground urged by her in support of this petition. From the perusal of the impugned blacklisting order dated 31.05.2025, it is evident that blacklisting is purported to be made operative for an indefinite or an indeterminate period. This is impermissible as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., [(2014) 14 SCC 731]. 9. In Kulja Industries Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations at paragraph 25, which reads as under: - 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. 10. From the above observations, it is apparent that debarment or blacklisting can never be permanent and the period of debarment/blacklisting would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. Following this decision, there are other decisions which hold that debarment/blacklisting for an indefinite or indeterminate period would be vulnerable and not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order, insofar as it purports to indefinitely or indeterminately debar/blacklist the petitioner, is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 11. However, we note that in Kulja Industries Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after concluding that debarment/blacklisting for an indefinite/ (2026: JHHC:22554- DB) 4 indeterminate period would be vulnerable proceeded to address the next question of whether the Court ought to itself determinate the time period for which the contractor should be blacklisted or remit the matter to the Authority for doing so having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances. 12. The discussions in the above regard are to be found in paragraphs 27 to 29 of the said judgment, which read as follows: - 27. The next question then is whether this Court ought to itself determine the time period for which the appellant should be blacklisted or remit the matter back to the authority to do so having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances. 28. A remand back to the competent authority has appealed to us to be a more appropriate option than an order by which we may ourselves determine the period for which the appellant would remain blacklisted. We say so for two precise reasons: 28.1. Firstly, because blacklisting is in the nature of penalty the quantum whereof is a matter that rests primarily with the authority competent to impose the same. In the realm of service jurisprudence this Court has no doubt cut short the agony of a delinquent employee in exceptional circumstances to prevent delay and further litigation by modifying the quantum of punishment but such considerations do not apply to a company engaged in a lucrative business like supply of optical fibre/HDPE pipes to BSNL. 28.2. Secondly, because while determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective the respondent Corporation may for the sake of objectivity and transparency formulate broad guidelines to be followed in such cases. Different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. While it may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate all types of offences and acts of misdemeanour, or violations of contractual obligations by a contractor, the respondent Corporation may do (2026: JHHC:22554- DB) 5 so as far as possible to reduce if not totally eliminate arbitrariness in the exercise of the power vested in it and inspire confidence in the fairness of the order which the competent authority may pass against a defaulting contractor. 29. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order [Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, WP (C) No. 2289 of 2011, order dated 6-4-2011 (Bom)] passed by the High Court and allow Writ Petition No. 2289 of 2011 filed by the appellant but only to the extent that while the order blacklisting the appellant shall stand affirmed, the period for which such order remains operative shall be determined afresh by the competent authority on the basis of guidelines which the Corporation may formulate for that purpose. The needful shall be done by the Corporation and/or the competent authority expeditiously but not later than six months from today. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 13. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we think that it would be appropriate to remand/remit the matter to the respondents because Mr Amritansh Vats pointed out that the charges against the petitioner relate inter alia to non-payment of even minimum wages to its employees and further, the failure on the part of the petitioner to provide adequate security inside the University campus, leading to serious law and order situation. 14. Ms Tanya Singh pointed out that the blacklisting has already continued for one year and that should suffice. We note that ultimately these are matters for the respondents to decide given the gravity of the charges and other attendant circumstances. No doubt, the respondents must hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned decision on this issue. Such decision must be taken within two months from today and communicated to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner would have the liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. (2026: JHHC:22554- DB) 6 15. This petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order to the extent that it debars or blacklists the petitioner for an indefinite period. The matter is remanded to the respondents for fixing the period of debarment or blacklisting in accordance with law and on its own merits, after due compliance with the principles of natural justice. 16. The Rule is made partly absolute to the above extent without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 30, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. AFR Uploaded on 03.08.2026