Blacklisting orders must comply with principles of natural justice, requiring specific grounds and opportunity for rebuttal; such orders cannot be indefinite and are subject to revocation.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.M.Das, learned counsel for the Water Resources Department.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the office order dated 13.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.2, by which he has been blacklisted for illegally withdrawing 2% Earnest Money amounting to Rs.9,65,000/-, which was deposited against work order No.CE/CC/WR/WO/SOPD-FDR/2019-20/1011/222 dated 28.05.2020 in relation to the work “Reconstruction of breached like damage embankment at U/S & D/S of Rly. line along with improvement of Noona R/B embankment along with A/E measures of different reaches under SOPD-FDR for the year 2019-20.” By the said impugned office order dated 13.05.2022 the petitioner has also been informed that he will not be allowed to participate in the tender process of the department and no renewal of registration will be allowed to him until further orders.

3. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the subsequent office order dated 18.05.2022, which superseded the earlier office order dated 13.05.2022. Vide office order dated 18.05.2022 the petitioner has been blacklisted for illegally withdrawing 2% Earnest Money deposited against the schemes under Nalbari Water Resources Division and Additional Performance Security as well as 2% Earnest Money deposited against Schemes under Barpeta Water Resources Division. The work orders against which the security were deposited are (1) CE/CC/WR/WO/SOPD-FDR/2019-20/1011/222, Dated- 28.05.2020 (2% Earnest Money) under Nalbari Water Resources Division) and (ii) CE/CC/WR/WO/SOPD- FDR/2019-20/1011/10, dated- 20.01.2020, and (iii) BWRD/Esti-4/RIDF- XXV/Sonkuchi-Rangapani/Pt-I/2020/3, Dated- 09.10.2020, 2% Earnest Money as well as Additional Performance Security under Barpeta Water Resources Division. By the said impugned office order dated 18.05.2022, the petitioner has also been informed that he will not be allowed to participate in tender process of the department and no renewal of registration will be allowed to him until further orders.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of Rule 151 of the GENERAL FINANCIAL POWER RULES , 2017, a procuring entity may be debarred/blacklisted for a period not exceeding 2 years. Also, in terms of Clause-1(iii) of the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2021 issued by the Government of India, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Procurement Policy Division, a procuring entity may be debarred/blacklisted for a period not exceeding 2 years. Further, in terms of Clause-14 of the O.M. dated 02.11.2021, an order of debarment/blacklisting shall be deemed to have automatically revoked, on the expiry of the specific period and it would not be necessary to issue a specific formal order of revocation.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner having been debarred/blacklisted on 13.05.2022 and 18.05.2022, the period of 2 years expired on 30.05.2024. As such, the petitioner cannot be debarred or blacklisted beyond 30.05.2024 and his debarment/blacklisting would have to be considered to be automatically revoked from 01.06.2024.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice, prior to the issuance of the office orders dated 13.05.2022 and 18.05.2022 and as such, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to rebut the reasons for blacklisting the petitioner. In this regard, he ha