63 WP 846 2026 7th September, 2026 vinita IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.846 OF 2026 Motherhood Foods, a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its office at No 61, 1st cross, Vaishnodevi Indl Area, Kumbalgodu, KIADB, Bangalore 560074 represented by its partner, namely Mrs. Swapna Arun, Aged 44 years, married, resident of 101 4th main, Adarsh agar, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore 560090 ….. Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariate, Porvorim, Goa. 2 The Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Goa, Dayanand Bandodkar Marg, Panaji Goa- 403001 ….. Respondents. Mr. Akhil Parrikar , Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Prashil Arolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the State. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED :- 7th September, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Valmiki Menezes, J.) 2026:BHC-GOA:1825-DB 63 WP 846 2026 7th September, 2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Additional Government Advocate. Mr Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice of behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The reliefs sought in the present petition are two-fold. 4. The first relief is for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 30.06.2026, whereby the Petitioner has been blacklisted from participating in any tender process in the State of Goa in respect of movable fish kiosks. By the said communication, the agreement dated 23.10.2024 entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 has also been terminated. 5. The second relief sought by the Petitioner is a challenge to the termination of the said contract. Mr Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2, on instructions, submits that prior to issuance of the communication dated 30.06.2026, whereby the Petitioner came to be blacklisted, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel, therefore, 63 WP 846 2026 7th September, 2026 fairly submits that, to the extent the impugned communication blacklists the Petitioner, the same cannot be sustained, being in breach of the principles of natural justice. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, and having regard to the fact that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner, before the order of blacklisting was passed, the Rule is made absolute to that extent. 7. Accordingly, insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the impugned communication dated 30.06.2026 is quashed and set aside to the extent that it blacklists the Petitioner from participating in any tender process in the State of Goa. 8. However, insofar as the impugned communication dated 30.06.2026 seeks to terminate the agreement dated 23.10.2024 entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, we leave it open to the Petitioner to avail an appropriate remedy by instituting a civil suit. Such remedy would be an alternate and efficacious remedy in respect of the challenge to the termination of the contractual arrangement. 9. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in terms of prayer clause (a). 63 WP 846 2026 7th September, 2026 10. The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK Designation: Private Secretary Date: 10/09/2026 11:02:22