1 2026:CGHC:25594-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3016 of 2026 Singhaniya Group and Industries Through its Proprietor, Pramod Singhania Son of Late Puran Lal Singhania, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Putpura Chowk Banari, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Bilaspur In Front Of Koni Police Station, Bilaspur Ratanpur Road, Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Its Registrar, Atal Bihari Vajpayee University, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Vice Chancellor Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Bilaspur In Front Of Koni Police Station, Bilaspur Ratanpur Road, Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 2 .0 6 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order/Office memo dated 03.12.2025 respondent (Annexure P/1) passed by the authorities whereby the firm of the petitioner has been restricted for sale and purchase in future and the firm of the petitioner has been blacklisted. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the participation of petitioner, fairly in the forthcoming Tenders of the university. 10.3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying all types of wooden and steel furniture and is duly registered under the GST laws with GST No. 22ABJFM9900F1ZE. The firm is also registered under the Udyam Registration portal and holds valid trademark registration under the name “Singhaniya Hindustani”. In addition, the petitioner is certified under various national and international quality standards, including IS standards issued by the National Standard Body of India and ISO certifications such as ISO 9001:2015, ISO 14001:2015, ISO 45001:2018, and ISO 50001:2018. 4. The petitioner has been a regular approved supplier of furniture to the respondent University through the GeM Portal and has 3 successfully executed around five work orders during the year 2025. All such work orders were completed satisfactorily, and full payments were released by the respondent university. Throughout the entire course of dealings, no complaint regarding quality or supply of goods was ever raised by the respondent university. However, on 03.12.2025, the respondent University issued an order blacklisting the petitioner firm without issuing any prior show cause notice or granting any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was neither informed of the order at the relevant time nor supplied a copy of the same, and came to know about it later through RTI proceedings. The petitioner subsequently submitted representations and RTI applications seeking redressal, but no effective action was taken by the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned action, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking quashing of the blacklisting order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 blacklisting the petitioner firm is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, having been passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that blacklisting has serious civil consequences amounting to “civil death” in commercial dealings and therefore cannot be imposed without strict compliance of principles of natural justice. Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC 70, wherein it has been categorically held that blacklisting affects the right to equality in government contracts and cannot be done without giving an opportunity of hearing. Further, in Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 9 SCC 105, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that issuance of a proper show cause notice clearly indicating the intention to blacklist is mandatory, and absence of such notice vitiates the order. It is further submitted that in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief Gen. Manager, W.T. Project, BSNL (2014) 14 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that blacklisting must be proportionate, supported by reasons, and cannot be arbitrary or mechanical. He further submitted that in the present case, admittedly no notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, rendering the impugned order wholly unsustainable in law. The petitioner had been a regular supplier to the respondent University with no adverse record or complaint, and the action of blacklisting is therefore arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent/ University submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as the impugned action of blacklisting has been taken strictly in accordance with law and within the contractual domain of the 5 respondent University. It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a supplier through the GeM Portal and the relationship between the parties is purely contractual in nature. The respondent University, being an autonomous body, is fully empowered to evaluate the performance of its vendors and to take appropriate administrative decisions, including blacklisting, in case of unsatisfactory conduct or breach of trust. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim blacklisting to be void merely on the ground of alleged absence of notice, as the same is subject to facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner was aware of the issues and circumstances which led to the impugned action, and the decision was taken on the basis of complaints and administrative satisfaction of the competent authority. It is also submitted that blacklisting is an administrative measure taken in the interest of maintaining transparency, integrity, and efficiency in public procurement. The respondent is entitled to ensure that only reliable and trustworthy vendors are continued in the system, and such decision falls within the scope of executive discretion. He lastly submitted that the impugned order is legal, valid, and justified, and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the prayers and pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to 6 passing of the impugned blacklisting order. The record further reveals that the petitioner was not even supplied the order contemporaneously and came to know of the same subsequently through RTI proceedings. Thus, the fundamental requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice stands violated. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC 70 has categorically held that blacklisting has serious civil consequences. It was observed: “The blacklisting order involves civil consequences for future business. The person concerned must be given an opportunity of being heard.” 10. Further, in Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 9 SCC 105, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a proper notice is a sine qua non for blacklisting. The Court observed: “Show cause notice is mandatory and it must specifically indicate that blacklisting is proposed.” 11. Similarly, in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, BSNL (2014) 14 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that blacklisting is a drastic measure and must be proportionate and supported by cogent reasons. It was held: “The authority must act fairly, reasonably and in a non- arbitrary manner while blacklisting a contractor.” 12. In the present case, the respondent University has failed to demonstrate compliance with these mandatory requirements. No 7 notice was issued, no inquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, and no opportunity was granted to explain or defend the allegations. The action is thus in complete violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 13. It is further settled that even in contractual matters involving the State or its instrumentalities, fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 must be maintained. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “The State must act fairly and cannot act arbitrarily even in contractual matters.” 14. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is vitiated due to violation of natural justice, arbitrariness, and lack of due process, and is therefore unsustainable. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the respondent University blacklisting the petitioner firm is quashed and set aside. The respondent is further directed to restore the petitioner to the list of eligible suppliers, subject to compliance with law, if any proceedings are initiated afresh after following due process. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra