1. Blacklisting of a contractor for three years for failing to deposit outstanding dues without prior show-cause notice. (Para 1 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 989
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
M/s S.S. Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest And Environment – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13955 of 2026
Decided On : 12-08-2026
Important Points
A party cannot be blacklisted or debarred from future tenders without a specific show-cause notice warning them of such consequences and providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, as failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Procurement and Blacklisting
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 - Section 40 - Blacklisting of contractor - Failure to issue specific show-cause notice regarding debarment - Violation of principles of natural justice - Issuance of notices for payment of outstanding dues is not an adequate substitute for a notice specifically warning of blacklisting - No adverse order can be passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing (Paras 11, 12, 16).
(B) Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - This principle comprises two key facets: (a) issuance of a notice of the case and (b) grant of a due opportunity to explain oneself - Non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to the affected person, and the lack of prejudice cannot be used as a ground to deny the right to a hearing (Paras 13, 16).
Facts of the case:
A contractor was awarded a contract for operating golf carts. Due to the non-payment of certain outstanding dues despite the issuance of several notices, the authority passed an order blacklisting the contractor for three years and debarring them from future tender processes for an indefinite period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that although multiple notices were issued requesting the payment of dues, none of the notices informed the contractor that failure to deposit the amount would lead to blacklisting or debarment. Consequently, the contractor was not afforded a proper opportunity to be heard before the adverse order was passed.
Issues: Whether an order of blacklisting and debarment passed without a specific show-cause notice informing the party of the potential consequence of such action violates the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that principles of natural justice are designed to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. For an administrative action to be fair, the affected party must be notified of the specific charges and the potential punishment proposed, and must be given a reasonable opportunity to represent their case. Mere notices for payment do not satisfy the requirement of a show-cause notice for blacklisting.
Result: Impugned order quashed and set-aside.
(B) Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - This principle comprises two key facets: (a) issuance of a notice of the case and (b) grant of a due opportunity to explain oneself - Non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to the affected person, and the lack of prejudice cannot be used as a ground to deny the right to a hearing (Paras 13, 16).
Facts of the case:
A contractor was awarded a contract for operating golf carts. Due to the non-payment of certain outstanding dues despite the issuance of several notices, the authority passed an order blacklisting the contractor for three years and debarring them from future tender processes for an indefinite period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that although multiple notices were issued requesting the payment of dues, none of the notices informed the contractor that failure to deposit the amount would lead to blacklisting or debarment. Consequently, the contractor was not afforded a proper opportunity to be heard before the adverse order was passed.
Issues: Whether an order of blacklisting and debarment passed without a specific show-cause notice informing the party of the potential consequence of such action violates the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that principles of natural justice are designed to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. For an administrative action to be fair, the affected party must be notified of the specific charges and the potential punishment proposed, and must be given a reasonable opportunity to represent their case. Mere notices for payment do not satisfy the requirement of a show-cause notice for blacklisting.
Result: Impugned order quashed and set-aside.
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Mandawat, Ms. Vrinda Mandawat
For the Respondent: Ms. Navya Sharma for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Mandawat, Ms. Vrinda Mandawat
For the Respondent: Ms. Navya Sharma for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Table of Contents
ORDER :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 29.04.2026, passed by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Wildlife, Udaipur, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passing the aforesaid impugned order, the respondents have blacklisted the petitioner for a period of three years to participate in any further tender processes of the respondent-Department. He submits that prior to passing the impugned order of blacklisting, debarring the petitioner for a period of three consecutive years, the respondents were supposed to issue a show-cause notice to him and they could not have passed the order impugned without an affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the aforesaid act of the respondents is contravention of the principles of natural justice.
3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 520 and The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others , reported in (2024) 15 SCC 264 and the order passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s Mdindia Health Insurance (TPA) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9690/2025 vide order dated 31.07.2025.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 29.04.2026, several notices were issued to the petitioner asking him to deposit the outstanding dues, but in spite of receipt of the aforesaid notices, the petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid amount.
5. Learned counsel submits that as per Section 40 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short "RTPP Act, 2012") any default or non-compliance by an incumbent would result in their department from future tender processes. Learned counsel submits that hence, under these circumstances, the respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the order impugned, which warrants any interference of this Court and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected.
6. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Isolators and Isolators Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and Anr. , reported in (2023) 8 SCC 607 and Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105.
7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
8. Perusal of the record indicates that the respondents had issued a Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) for the operation of golf carts at Sajjangarh Biological Park, Udaipur. The petitioner participated in the bidding process and he was successfully awarded the contract for the said purpose. It appears that certain outstanding dues were owed by the petitioner, which were not deposited by him. Hence, several notices were issued by the respondents to the petitioner for deposition of the same.
9. Thereafter, when the petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid outstanding dues, in spite of the repeated notices issued by the respondents to him, the respondents passed the impugned order by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years from participating in the tender processes of any other department, and also debarred from participating in the fture tender processes of the respondent-department for indefinite period.
10. A legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to passing of the aforesaid impugned order, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner i
