JUDGMENT

Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur and the learned counsel for the respondent State, Shri Sajay Kumar, AC to AAG-4.

3. The present writ petition, though has been filed for setting aside the order passed by the District Planning Officer, Madhepura, as contained in Memo No. 1004, dated 24.12.2020, by which the work issued to the petitioner's firm has been terminated and the firm has been blacklisted as also it has been stipulated therein that the petitioner will not be able to participate in any tender, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayer made in the present writ petition only to that portion of the impugned order dated 24.12.2020, whereby the petitioner's firm has been blacklisted and it has been directed that it shall not be able to participate in any tender.

4. The short issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition, for assailing the impugned order dated 24.12.2020, is that first of all no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner's firm before it was blacklisted and secondly, the petitioner firm could not have been blacklisted for a perpetual period inasmuch as the same entails civil consequences.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State, though has got no quarrel with the legal issue raised by the petitioner and has also not been able to show that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner firm, prior to passing of the blacklisting order as aforesaid, but has submitted that the order of termination of the work allotted to the petitioner's firm is justified and requires no interference.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. This Court finds from a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 24.12.2020, passed by the District Planning Officer, Madhepura that the same neither depicts issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner, prior to the passing of the blacklisting order, nor the same takes into account the petitioner's version, which in any view of the matter could not have been considered since the petitioner was never granted an opportunity of hearing, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice and moreover, this Court also finds from the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 that the same has not only blacklisted the petitioner for an indefinite period i.e. for all times to come but has also barred the petitioner from participating in any future contracts, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731 ; paragraphs no. 25 to 29 whereof, are reproduced herein below:-

"25. Suffice it to say that "debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the "debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.

26. In the case at hand according to the respondent BSNL, the appellant had fraudulently withdrawn a huge amount of money which was not due to it in collusion and conspiracy with the officials of the respondent Corporation. Even so permanent debarment from future contracts for all times to come may sound too harsh and heavy a punishment to be considered reasonable especially when (a) the appellant is supplying bulk of its manufactured products to the respondent BSNL, and (b) the excess amount received by it has already been pa