[2026:RJ-JP:25076] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8866/2026 URN: CW / 19642U / 2026 M/s Super Ex Servicemen COS Private Limited through its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Bajrang Singh Shekhawat having its registered office at 121, Kailash Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302012. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department (UDH), Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) through its Secretary, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur-302004. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur-302004. 4. The Rajasthan Housing Board through its Secretary, Janpath RHB Headquarter, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur with Mr. Aashish Mittal & Ms. Vinita Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Sharma with Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma Mr. Vishal Kumar with Ms. Pooja Sharma on behalf of Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting asider the Impugned Order dated 17.04.2026 [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (2 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] (Order No.JDA/Acct/Estt/2026/D-899) and the Corrigendum dated 27.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-2 Colly), declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice, the RTPP Act, 2012, and the Constitution of India; (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately restore the Work Order dated 24.11.2025 and all associated Work Orders, allowing the Petitioner to continue executing the manpower supply services for the remaining unexpired 50% tenure of the contract; (iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately revoke the 3-year debarment/blacklisting imposed upon the Petitioner firm, restoring its fundamental right to participate in ongoing and future public procurement processes; (iv) Issue a Writ Mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately release and refund the illegally forfeited Performance Security amount of Rs. 16,11,200/- (Axis Bank FDR No. 925040110294744) to the Petitioner, along with applicable commercial bank interest from the date of forfeiture till the date of actual realization; (v) Award the costs of this writ petition in favor of the Petitioner; and (vi) Pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience." 2. At the outset, on instructions, Mr. Vinay Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw prayers No.(i), (ii), (iv) & (v) with liberty to avail alternative remedies as per law. 3. Permission sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner for withdrawing the prayers No.(i), (ii), (iv) & (v) with liberty is granted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined the scope of the instant writ petition only to prayer No.(iii) relating to three years debarment/blacklisting imposed by respondent upon petitioner-firm vide orders dated 17.04.2026 & 27.04.2026. 5. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013, and participated in tender process initiated by the respondent-Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (3 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] Development Authority for manpower supply contracts in order to deploy highly skilled supervisors, skilled security guards and unskilled class-IV labourers across JDA's vast infrastructure network etc. 6. It is not disputed that in order to satisfy the eligibility criteria for the purpose of submitting tender documents, the said firm was required to possess experience certificates as well as previous work orders demonstrating that earlier also it had supplied manpower of requisite strength and had carried out a similar nature of work. 7. It is a case of the petitioner that the tender process initiated by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority was having two different stages. At the first stage, the eligibility was required to be assessed and thereafter a financial bid was to be examined as per competitive rates submitted by different bidders. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of the tender process, the petitioner was declared successful and work order was issued by the petitioner. Accordingly, manpower as per the work order was also supplied by the petitioner. However, all of a sudden one notice dated 04.03.2026 was issued to the petitioner-company containing allegations that the petitioner, in order to prove itself eligible for participating in the tender process, had submitted forged and fabricated certificates copies of all such certificates were sent by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, to the petitioner with a view to call for its explanation in this regard, failing which action was required to be [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (4 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] taken against the petitioner as per Rules and terms of the contract. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that immediately after receiving notice dated 04.03.2026, due explanation was submitted on 23.03.2026. In the explanation, the petitioner tried to justify that there was no forgery or fabrication on the part of the petitioner and only on account of typographical error crept into tender documents, any harsh action should not be taken against the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without properly adjudicating the notice and without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, order dated 17.04.2026 was issued by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, whereby the contract along with work order executed in the favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the security amount to the tune of Rs.16,11,200/- was also forefeited. Simultaneously, the petitioner- company was also debarred/blacklisted for a period of three years from participating in any of the tender process to be issued by the Jaipur Development Authority. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as cancellation and forfeiture of security amount, the petitioner would take separate remedies, yet as regards debarment/blacklisting vide order dated 17.04.2026 is concerned, the action taken by the respondents is apparently arbitrary and in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that by way of issuing notice dated 04.03.2026, simply explanation of the petitioner was sought with regard to alleged [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (5 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] allegation of submitting forged documents and there was no whisper whatsoever in the entire notice revealing any intention of the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority to debar/blacklist the petitioner-firm for a period of three years. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since there was no notice for blacklisting, therefore, the petitioner- company has been deprived of its rights to submit its representation/explanation for convincing the Authority that conduct of the petitioner is not so grievous, which can be saddled with harshest penalty of blacklisting/debarment. Thus, the petitioner has been condemned virtually without there being any hearing with regard to blacklisting/debarment. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Techno Prints Vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr. reported in 2025 (3) SCR 208 and M/s A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 312 in support of his contentions. 14. The instant writ petition was opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Jaipur Development Authority, who submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner was indulged in unfair activities, such as, submitting forged and fabricated documents so as to show itself as eligible bidder and thus by misrepresenting the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority, the petitioner succeeded in getting the work order pursuant to NIT-in-question. [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (6 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] 15. Learned counsel submitted that only on receiving a complaint in this regard, notice dated 04.03.2026 was issued by respondent-Jaipur Development Authority to the petitioner, which was expressly specific in nature, wherein it was made clear that, in case, explanation is not submitted within a period of seven days, action in accordance with the Rules and conditions of contract shall be taken against the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority vehemently argued that it was also a condition under the contract that if a Firm was found to have indulged in unfair activity, such as submitting incorrect/forged documents, it could be debarred/blacklisted from participating in future tender. Even Section 11 of the Rajasthan Transparency Public Procurement Act, 2012, makes it clear that in the event of submitting forged documents or misrepresenting the procuring agency, the bidder can be debarred from future participation in the procurement process. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority further submits that in the instant case although reply to notice dated 04.03.2026 was submitted by the petitioner on 23.03.2026, yet such reply was totally vague and does not justify the misdeeds committed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that submitting forged documents has not been disputed by the petitioner even in the reply dated 23.03.2026 and rather unfounded as well as baseless justifications, which have got no connection with the subject-in-question, have been given and, therefore, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable to respondent-Jaipur Development Authority. Thus, [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (7 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] after giving a due opportunity of hearing, impugned order dated 17.04.2026 was passed, whereby, while cancelling the contract and forfeiting the security amount, the petitioner has also been blacklisted/debarred. Such action of the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority is strictly in accordance with law and cannot be allowed to be challenged by the petitioner by way of filing this writ petition. 18. Heard the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsels and perused the material on record. 19. Since prayers No.(i), (ii), (iv) & (v) have been withdrawn by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, there is no occasion to examine or comment upon merits thereof in the present order. This Court is concerned with the issue with regard to validity of order dated 17.04.2026 to the extent of debarring/blacklisting the petitioner, and whether the notice dated 04.03.2026 issued by the Jaipur Development Authority was adequate for taking action of blacklisting/debarment against the petitioner. 20. On a bare perusal of notice dated 04.03.2026, it becomes clear that although it contains an allegation that while submitting tender documents, forged and fabricated experience certificates were submitted by the petitioner and copies of such documents were forwarded seeking explanation from the petitioner coupled with a warning that, in case, explanation was not given within the stipulated time, action in accordance with Rules and terms and conditions of the contract shall be taken against the petitioner. However, the nature of the proposed action [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (8 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] to be taken by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority was nowhere specified in the entire notice dated 04.03.2026. 21. The aforesaid notice is also lacking in specificity, as it does not indicate as to which particular condition of contract or which Rule has been allegedly violated by the petitioner. The aforesaid notice is also silent over the nature of penal action which was proposed to be taken against the petitioner. 22. This Court finds that the notice dated 04.03.2026 cannot be construed as a composite notice for cancellation of contract, forfeiture of security amount for violation of terms and conditions of contract, as well as for debarment/blacklisting of petitioner- Firm. 23. It goes without saying that debarment/blacklisting of a firm entails serious consequences and inevitably affects right to carry on trade and business of that particular firm. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that where, for any violation of any of the terms and conditions of the contract or of any prevailing rule, in case the procuring agency intends to take any action with regard to blacklisting/debarment of the firm, then the show cause notice must specifically disclose the proposed action of blacklisting to be taken against the firm. This is necessary to ensure that sufficient opportunity is afforded to the particular firm for defending its cause qua the proposed penalty of blacklisting/debarring. 24. In the case of M/s A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the conditions governing termination of contract and blacklisting are quite distinct and have got independent scope. A [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (9 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] decision of blacklisting is not automatic and cannot be a logical consequence of decision of termination. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the show-cause notice also found that the notice was not sufficient as it did not refer to any purported penalty of blacklisting, therefore, on the basis of such notice, the action of blacklisting was quashed and set aside. Paras No.18 to 22 of the above judgment are relevant and are being quote hereunder: "18. The contractual conditions governing termination on the one hand and those that relate to blacklisting on the other are distinct and will be exercised independently. A decision of blacklisting is not automatic and certainly not a logical consequence of a decision of termination. Even after the Department decides to terminate the contract, there is still a choice of exercising the power of blacklisting. These decisions operate in two dimensions - past and subsisting for termination and future for blacklisting. In other words, an order of blacklisting transcends the existing contract and debars the contractor from contracts that could probably be executed in the next five years. In view of the serious consequences, it is necessary for the Department to issue a specific notice proposing blacklisting of a contractor and call for an explanation as to why an order of blacklisting should not be passed. This is exactly the purpose and object behind Rule 10.5. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (10 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” 20. In order to emphasise the requirement of a show cause notice preceding an order of blacklisting, this Court in UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India held that- “13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Custodian General, Evacuee Property has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the State or a State Corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularised and unambiguous show-cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatisation 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 effect 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 afforded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting take 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. [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (11 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] 21. Thus, from the above discussion, a clear legal position emerges that for a show- cause notice to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that there is intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the noticee. Such a clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom the penalty of blacklisting is intended to be imposed, has an adequate, informed and meaningful opportunity to show cause against his possible blacklisting.” 21. The judgment in M/S Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation underscored the need for a detailed consideration of the consequences of blacklisting right at the outset, that is, from the stage of issuing of show cause notice. The Court held as follows- “29. However, what is important for us to say is that when there are guiding principles explained by this Court as to when & in what circumstances a blacklisting order can be passed then, in our opinion such principles should also be borne in mind by the Authority at the time of issuing a show cause notice. We say so because in the facts of a given case like the one on hand, on the face of which it could be said that there was no good reason for the Authority to issue a show cause notice calling upon the contractor why he should not be blacklisted. Why ask the contractor to face the proceedings when applying the aforesaid principles, the issue of show cause notice would be an empty formality. We are saying all this keeping in mind the peculiar facts of this case. 30. Therefore, the Authority is expected to be very careful before issuing a show cause notice. It is expected to understand the facts well and try to ascertain what sort of violation is said to have been committed by the contractor. As noted above, there is always an inherent power in the Authority to blacklist a contractor. But possessing such inherent power and exercising such power are two different situations and connotations. There may be a power but there should be reasonable ground to exercise such power. 31. To put it by way of an illustration, the Police has the power to arrest but it is not necessary that in all cases arrest must be effected. The Police should know whether at all arrest is necessary. 32. We may put it in a slightly different way. Take for instance, the show cause notice in the present case is the final order of blacklisting. The final order in any case [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (12 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. Therefore, we take the show cause notice as the final order. Whether it makes out a case for blacklisting? This should be the test to determine whether it is a genuine case to blacklist a contractor or visit him with any other penalty like forfeiture of EMD, recovery of damages etc. We say so because once an order of blacklisting is passed the same would put an end to the business of the person concerned. It is a drastic step. Once the final order blacklisting the Contractor is passed then the Contractor is left with no other option but to go to the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenge the same. If he succeeds before the Single Judge then it is well and good otherwise he may have to prefer a writ appeal or LPA as the case may be. This again would lead to unnecessary litigation in the High Courts. The endeavour should be to curtail the litigation and not to overburden the High Courts with litigations of the present type more particularly when the law by and large is very well settled and there is no further scope of any debate.” 22. Returning to the facts of the present case, at the outset, it is apparent that the show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 does not purport to be a show cause notice for blacklisting at all. It perhaps expects the contractor to assume that it is for termination as well as for blacklisting. Even if we accept the submissions of Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh that, as there is no provision for prior notice before termination, this show cause notice must be taken to be for blacklisting, we are of the opinion that it still falls short of the requirement of a proper show cause notice for blacklisting. This is for the reason that as the decision to blacklist is independent of the decision to terminate, the Department must demonstrate application of mind before it takes the next step of blacklisting the contractor, over an order of termination. Upon taking such a decision, it must also issue a show cause notice calling upon the contractor to explain why a consequential order of blacklisting should also not be passed. The letter must be indicative of the proposed decision to blacklist and the requirement of the contractor to respond to it. The show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 falls short of these requirements. Similarly, the final order of blacklisting, dated 23.08.2024, also does not list the reasons as to why an order of blacklisting has become necessary." 25. Similarly, in the case of M/s Techno Prints Vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that possessing power of blacklisting and [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (13 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] following procedure for such action are two different things and such power to blacklist should be exercised in reasonable manner. Paras No.29, 30 & 33 of the above judgment are relevant and are being quote hereunder: "29. However, what is important for us to say is that when there are guiding principles explained by this Court as to when & in what circumstances a blacklisting order can be passed then, in our opinion such principles should also be borne in mind by the Authority at the time of issuing a show cause notice. We say so because in the facts of a given case like the one on hand, on the face of which it could be said that there was no good reason for the Authority to issue a show cause notice calling upon the contractor why he should not be blacklisted. Why ask the contractor to face the proceedings when applying the aforesaid principles, the issue of show cause notice would be an empty formality. We are saying all this keeping in mind the peculiar facts of this case. 30. Therefore, the Authority is expected to be very careful before issuing a show cause notice. It is expected to understand the facts well and try to ascertain what sort of violation is said to have been committed by the contractor. As noted above, there is always an inherent power in the Authority to blacklist a contractor. But possessing such inherent power and exercising such power are two different situations and connotations. There may be a power but there should be reasonable ground to exercise such power. 33. As observed by this Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., (1975) 1 SCC 70, an order of blacklisting casts a slur on the party being blacklisted and is stigmatic. Given the nature of such an order and the import thereof, it would be unreasonable and arbitrary to visit every contractor who is in breach of his contractual obligations with such consequences. There have to be strong, independent and overwhelming materials to resort to this power given the drastic consequences that an order of blacklisting has on a contractor. The power to blacklist cannot be resorted to when the grounds for the same are only breach or violation of a term or condition of a particular contract and when legal redress is available to both parties. Else, for every breach or violation, though there are legal modes of redress and which compensate the party like the Corporation before us, it would resort to blacklisting and at times by abandoning or scuttling the pending legal proceedings." 26. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that since notice dated 04.03.2026 issued by respondent-Jaipur Development Authority was not specific notice demonstrating its [2026:RJ-JP:25076] (14 of 14) [CW-8866/2026] intention to take action of blacklisting against the petitioner, therefore, order dated 17.04.2026, in so far as it relates to debarring/blacklisting of the petitioner for a period of three years from participating in any other bid proceedings of Jaipur Development Authority, is arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 27. As the order dated 17.04.2026, to the extent of blacklisting/debarment, has been quashed only on the ground i.e., the notice was not specific in nature, mere quashing of such action of debarment/blacklisting on such ground would not curtail rights of the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority in issuing a fresh and specific notice in this regard, if so advised and, in case, any such fresh notice is issued, the Jaipur Development Authority, after granting opportunity of hearing, is at liberty to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. 28. As regards, prayers No.(i), (ii), (iii) & (v) the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy. 29. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. 30. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 15/DAKSH