Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24680 (JHR)

M/S RAMESH PRASAD PRAMOD PRASAD, THRO ITS PROPRIETOR RAMESH PRASAD GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THRO ITS SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF FOOD, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

WPC/6576/2026 · 2026-08-31

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:26169-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6576 of 2026 ----- M/s Ramesh Prasad Pramod Prasad, a proprietorship firm, having its address at Bypass Chowk, Railway Station Road, Masjid Road, Latehar, P.O., P.S. and District-Latehar, Jharkhand, through its proprietor Ramesh Prasad Gupta, son of Banarsi Saw, resident of Masjid Road, Latehar, P.O., P.S. and District-Latehar, Jharkhand. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Latehar. 3. Additional Collector, Latehar. 4. District Supply Officer, Latehar. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. ----- Order No.02 Date: 31.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw for the petitioner and Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned A.C. to A.G. for the respondents. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14th August, 2025, blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period. 4. Mr Kumar Vaibhaw submits that the impugned order was neither preceded by any show cause notice suggesting that the petitioner would be blacklisted nor were there any circumstances from which such an intention could be deciphered. Besides, he submits that the impugned order purports to blacklist the petitioner for an indefinite period, which is impermissible. He relies on the decision Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:26169-DB) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551 in support of his contentions. 5. Mr Vibhor Mayank defends the impugned order by submitting that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order was made. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 7. In this case, we have perused the show cause notices that preceded the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025. None of these notices is specific to the proposed blacklisting. From the material on record or the circumstances surrounding the notices, no intention can be deciphered about any proposed blacklisting. 8. In UMC Technologies Private Limited (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that since blacklisting has severe civil consequences, there should be strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, a show cause notice must specifically mention the proposed action of blacklisting or, at least, the circumstances surrounding the notice must express a clear intention to that effect. A vague or general notice was held to be insufficient. 9. Accordingly, on the above ground, the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 is liable to be set aside. 10. In addition, the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 purports to blacklist the petitioner for an indefinite period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:26169-DB) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 731 has held that blacklisting can never be permanent and the period of blacklisting would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. This is an additional ground for interfering with the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025. 11. On the above two grounds, we set aside the impugned blacklisting order dated 14th August, 2025. However, such setting aside will not preclude the respondents, if they so desire, from issuing a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner about the proposed action of blacklisting and disposing of such show cause notice in accordance with law and on its own merits. 12. The Rule is made absolute to the above extent and without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 31st August, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 02.09.2026