1 CGHC010358432026 2026:CGHC:40567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4737 of 2026 1 - Kishun Jangde S/o Late Parasram Jangde Aged About 42 Years R/o And Post - Ghoghra, Tahsil And P.S. Nawagarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, 4th Floor, Excise Bhawan, Labhandi Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, 1st Floor, Room No. 22, Excise Office, Collectorate Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Manager Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 5 - District Excise Officer Near Collectorate Premises, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 6 - Excise Sub-Inspector Circle Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 7 - Rajdeep Enterprises Placement Agency, Branch Office, C-311, Sector-6, Vallahin Nagar Behind Sant Gyaneshwar School District Raipur Chhattisgarh YASMIN KHAN Digitally signed by YASMIN KHAN DN: cn=YASMIN KHAN, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.09.22 11:41:37 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Shri. Malay Shrivsatava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.09.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the action of the respondents in reflecting the petitioner’s name as a blacklisted employee on their web-portal (Annexure P-2), without issuance of any show cause notice, inquiry or affording a proper opportunity of hearing, thereby rendering the impugned action arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remove the name of petitioner from the impugned black list of web-portal of the respondents (Annexure P-2) with immediate effect. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction to the respondents, particularly the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure P-3 and P-6) for illegally adding the name of the petitioner in black list of web – portal of department. 3 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 03/04/2024, a raid was conducted by the Excise Flying Squad, Durg Division, at the Foreign Liquor Shop, Nawagarh, in which a criminal case was registered against two salesmen. It is further contended that the petitioner was the Main Salesman at the said shop; however, as he had no involvement in the matter of adulteration of liquor, he was a witness in the said case, however, by way of two letters dated 03/09/2024 and 05/09/2024, the Department made improper correspondence for blacklisting the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, the petitioner-employee was blacklisted and he has submitted representations before the Department, but no appropriate and justified action was taken thereon. As per the departmental minutes proceedings/details (Annexure – P/4) dated 04/04/2025, the Department does not remove the name of any person from the blacklist under any circumstances. Therefore, no order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Being compelled by the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the present petition for obtaining expeditious justice. 3. Learned counsel would contend that despite repeated oral requests and a formal representation dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure 4 P-3) and 05.06.2026 (Annexure – P/6 ) the respondents have failed to rectify the error and have mechanically orally rejected the petitioner’s claim, without assigning any cogent or legally tenable justified reasons. It is further submitted that such arbitrary blacklisting has seriously prejudiced the petitioner, as it has deprived him of participating in employment opportunities under the Excise Department and allied agencies, thereby causing irreparable loss to his livelihood and reputation. 4. Placing reliance on the principle that blacklisting cannot be resorted to without adherence to due process, learned counsel submits that the impugned action deserves to be quashed. It is also contended that in an identical matter, this Court in WPC No.6615 of 2025 vide order dated 27.04.2026 and WPC No.2158 of 2026 vide order dated 06.05.2026 directed correction of a similar error, pursuant to which the concerned employee’s name was removed from the blacklist (Annexure P-2), and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to parity. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the impugned action cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal, as the name of the petitioner came to be reflected in the web- portal on the basis of the records available with the department at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the competent authority with all relevant documents, for appropriate 5 consideration, and without exhausting such remedy, the present petition is premature and not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the admitted position that the petitioner submitted his two representations dated 17.02.2026 and 05.06.2026 seeking removal of his name from the blacklisted category is pending consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondents No. 2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. It is directed that the said respondent shall examine the petitioner’s representations dated 17.02.2026 and 05.06.2026, objectively and take into account all relevant materials, including the annexed judgment dated 27.04.2026 and 06.05.2026. If deemed necessary, the petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing a reasoned justified and speaking order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a reasonable period from the date of receipt of copy of this order preferably within a period of 45 days. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case, and the competent authority shall take an independent, justified decision strictly in accordance with law. 6 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge yasmin