[2026:RJ-JP:14042-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1242/2025 M/s Pious Placement And Trading Services, Plot No.22, Awasiya Yojana, Bhairav Vihar, Hathoj, Jhotwara, Jaipur - 302012 Through Its Proprietor Shri Uttam Kumar Yadav S/o Shrichand Yadav, Aged About 59 Years. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Through Its General Manager (Personnel And Administration), Saras Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. 2. Metro Dairy Plant, Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu, District, Jaipur Through Its Incharge. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Lamror HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/04/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. Admittedly, the respondents have blacklisted the appellant-firm without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing as well as without following the due process of law, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of [2026:RJ-JP:14042-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1242/2025] Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2026 INSC 312, wherein, paras No.19 & 23, it held as under:- “19. The requirement under Clause 10.5 is a clear case of legislative (in this case subordinate legislation) incorporation of principles of natural justice. This Court has time and again emphasised the need to adhere to principles of natural justice while passing blacklisting orders, given the grave consequences that follow. In Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, it was observed that – “15. The blacklisting order does not pertain to any particular contract. The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions. The blacklists are “instruments of coercion”. 20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” 23. The contractual relationship between the parties is governed by two legal regimes. While GCC governs termination, the 2012 Rules govern blacklisting. Proceedings for termination should not be conflated with proceedings for blacklisting. In the latter action, what is at stake is the future of the contractor. A blacklisting order assumes that the contractor is an incorrigible entity, at least for some time to come, in this case such an assumption was intended to operate [2026:RJ-JP:14042-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1242/2025] for five years. For giving effect to such a premise, there has to be sufficient evidence, clear application of mind and stronger adherence to principles of natural justice5. The blacklisting order dated 23.08.2004 falls short of this requirement and is liable to be set aside.” 4. In view of the aforesaid and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd (supra), the present appeal is allowed. The order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. 5. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order against the appellant in accordance with law, after following due process. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /47