1 CGHC010325172026 2026:CGHC:37298-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4337 of 2026 1 - Kamthean Security Service Through Its Proprietor, Mr. R.K. Drivedi, S/o- Late Shri Ramsiya Drivedi, Aged About 54 Years, R/o- Raj Plaza, 2nd Floor, Sanyogitaganj, Chhawani, Indore-1 (M.P.)-452007. 2 - Mr. R.K. Drivedi, S/o- Late Shri Ramsiya Drivedi, Aged About 54 Years R/o- Raj Plaza, 2nd Floor, Sanyogitaganj, Chhawani, Indore-1 (M.P.)-452007. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - National Institute of Technology Raipur, Through Its Registrar, National Institute of Technology Raipur, Through- Registrar- Dr. P.Y. Dhekne, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492010 2 - House Keeping Committee, O>ce At National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492010 3 - Joint Registrar, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492010 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K.Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. T.K.Jha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek for the following relief(s): “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the circular dated 19.12.2025 (P-7) blacklisting the petitioner passed without giving show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in facts and circumstances of the case. C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem +t in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner No. 1 Arm, which is engaged in the business of cleaning services and security management throughout India. The petitioners participated in the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT) dated 03.11.2023 bearing No. NIT RR/S&P/HK/OT/2086 issued by the the respondent No. 1 and emerged as successful bidder. The respondent authority issued work order to the petitioner on 29.02.2024, pursuant to which the petitioners diligently performed security and housekeeping services from March 2024 to February 2025 to the satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioners from time to time raised monthly invoices which remained pending and due to non-payment, dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent. The respondent authority issued letter dated 27.11.2024 to the petitioner, inter alia stating that GST payment and labour payment was done by the petitioners to which the petitioners submitted their reply on 28.11.2024 requesting the respondent authority to clear the pending invoices and further provide details of pending GST and that the same would be paid after payment made by the respondents. After submitting reply by the petitioners, partial payment was released and the petitioners completed its work order till last date i.e. 28.02.2025. Being satisAed with the work of the 3 petitioners, the respondent authority oDered to extend the time period of the work order to which the petitioners, considering substantial delay in payment, refused to accept the same and requested to issue fresh tender. 4. Mr. T.K.Jha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners, being a renowned security service provider is providing services across India and has its presence in several States. The petitioners participated in NIT dated 07.08.2026 issued by Chief Medical and Heath o>cer, District Datia (MP). During participation in the tender process, objection was raised by one of the competitors i.e. Bombay Integrated Security India that the petitioners have not disclosed true and correct facts and petitioner-Arm has been blacklisted by the respondent authority. The Chief Medical and Health O>cer issued a letter and sought reply by 5.30 p.m. on 17.08.2026. The petitioners were devastated on becoming aware about the circular dated 19.12.2025 issued by the respondent, through objection Aled by one of the competitor. The work order issued by the respondents has expired on 28.02.2025 but in the impugned circular, it is stated that work contract is terminated with immediate eDect and petitioners are blacklisted for one year. The said order shows complete non-application of mind and the whole act is arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. Mr. Jha further submits that the petitioners, for the Arst time came to know about the mpugned circular dated 19.12.2025 on 13.08.2026 only whereby the petitioner-Arm has been blacklisted after 8 months of completion of its work. The petitioner applied before the respondent authority for copy of circular and related documents through RTI which is pending. Mr. Jha further submits that no show cause notice was issued or any opportunity of hearing aDorded before passing the impugned 4 circular (Annexure P/7) The extreme step of blacklisting the petitioner Arm amounts to civil death. 6. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jha places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 and further a judgment rendered by this Court in M/s. Dynmi Enterprises v. Union of India & Others {decided on 21.07.2026}, wherein in similar set of facts, this Court has set aside the order of blacklisting on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was aDorded to the petitioner therein and as such, similar order may also be passed in this petition. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that since the work of the petitioner-Arm was not satisfactory, the contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondents was terminated and the petitioner-Arm was blacklisted for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the circular i.e. 19.12.2025. The circular itself clariAes that despite multiple written notices, warnings and opportunities granted to rectify the deAciencies, the petitioner Arm consistently failed to comply with essential service requirements, including, but not limited to payment of GST to the Government against tax invoices raised for services provide to the NIT Raipur, non-compliance with statutory obligations pertaining to the Government of India rules, repeated negligence leading to disruption of payment operations and unsatisfactory performance and violation of the standards agreed in the contract and as such, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended with the petition and have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 5 9. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-authority, by the impugned circular dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/7), has blacklisted the petitioner-Arm for a period of one year without issuing any show cause notice or aDording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has sought to justify the impugned action on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner-Arm were unsatisfactory and that despite repeated notices and warnings, the deAciencies were not rectiAed. 10. From the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the impugned circular dated 19.12.2025 entails serious civil consequences to the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioner-Arm has been debarred/blacklisted for a period of one year. Blacklisting has serious consequences upon the reputation and business prospects of an entity and, therefore, an order of blacklisting cannot ordinarily be passed behind the back of the person or entity sought to be blacklisted. The principles of natural justice require that before taking such an adverse action, the aDected party must be informed of the allegations proposed to be relied upon and must be aDorded a reasonable opportunity to submit its explanation and place the relevant facts and materials before the competent authority. 11. In the present case, although the respondents have contended that several notices and warnings were issued to the petitioners in relation to alleged deAciencies in performance, the respondents have not been able to demonstrate that, prior to passing the impugned circular dated 19.12.2025, a speciAc show cause notice proposing blacklisting/ debarment for a period of one year was issued to the petitioners and that an eDective opportunity was aDorded to them to put forth their case against such proposed action. The fact that notices may have been 6 issued during the subsistence of the contract in relation to alleged deAciencies in performance cannot, by itself, be treated as compliance with the requirement of natural justice before imposing the distinct and serious penalty of blacklisting. The petitioners were required to be put to notice that, on account of the alleged defaults, the respondent-authority proposed to blacklist them and to aDord them a reasonable opportunity to explain why such action should not be taken. Such opportunity assumes signiAcance particularly because the petitioners have asserted that there were disputes regarding non-payment of their invoices and that they had responded to the communication dated 27.11.2024 by requesting release of the pending dues and details of the alleged outstanding GST liability. 12. We also And substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned circular was brought to their knowledge only subsequently, when an objection was raised by a competitor during the tender process in which the petitioners participated. The respondents have not placed before us any material demonstrating that the petitioners were aDorded an opportunity of hearing speciAcally in respect of the proposed blacklisting before the impugned circular was issued. 13. The issue before us, therefore, is not whether the allegations regarding unsatisfactory performance, non-payment of GST, non-compliance with statutory obligations or other contractual deAciencies are ultimately correct or not. We express no opinion on the merits of those allegations. The limited question is whether the petitioners were aDorded a reasonable opportunity to meet those allegations before the extreme measure of blacklisting was imposed. On the material placed before us, the answer has to be in the negative. 14. The Supreme Court, Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT 7 of Delhi), reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, has described blacklisting as being equivalent to the civil death of a person because blacklisting is stigmatic in nature and debars a person from participating in government tenders thereby precluding him from the award of government contracts. It was held thus: “16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is +rmly grounded and does not even demand much ampli+cation. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts.” 15. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551, which reads as under: “14. Speci+cally, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the state or a state corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularized and unambiguous show cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatization that accrues to the person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the e:ect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts. This privilege arises because it is the State who is the counterparty in government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be a:orded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting takes away this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person’s reputation and brings the person’s character into question. Blacklisting also has long-lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the blacklisted person.” 8 16. This Court has also recently considered a similar issue in M/s. Dynmi Enterprises (supra) wherein an order of blacklisting was interfered with on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The same principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned circular dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/7), to the extent it blacklists/debars the petitioner-Arm for a period of one year, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside to that extent. The petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 18. The respondent-authority shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for blacklisting/debarment afresh, if so advised, by issuing a proper show cause notice setting out the allegations and proposed action and by aDording the petitioners reasonable opportunity to submit their reply and an eDective opportunity of hearing, and thereafter to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.21 11:40:39 +0530