The decision of blacklisting is subject to scrutiny based on principles of fairness, natural justice, non-discrimination, reasonableness, and proportionality. Serving a show cause notice specifying the grounds and the action under contemplation is mandatory.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed with following prayers:

(i) For quashing letter no. 896 dated 11.06.2020 (Anneuxre-16 to the writ petition) issued by the Secretary-cum-Excise Commissioner, Department of Excise and Prohibition, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner’s application for renewal of licenses relating to retail shop of Foreign/country made liquor for the financial year 2020-21 has been rejected.

(ii) For quashing the order as contained in memo no. 436 dated 27.04.2020 (Anneuxre-13 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag (the respondent no. 4) whereby the petitioner’s application for renewal of licenses for the financial year 2020-21 being license nos. 013-FLX-HZB-19-20 and 011-CLX-HZB-19-20 issued for foreign liquor shop and country made liquor shop respectively at Katkamdag/Kud has been rejected by forfeiting all the deposited amount towards security money, excise transport duty, license fee etc. as well as he has been blacklisted with observation that after adjusting the forfeited amount with respect to amount due for the financial year 2019-20, certificate case would be initiated against him for recovery of remaining due amount.

(iii) For renewal of the aforesaid licenses of the petitioner for the financial year 2020-21.

(iv) For refunding the security amount along with statutory interest of 18% and to impose exemplary cost against the respondents for the financial loss caused to the petitioner.

(v) For restraining the concern respondents from taking any coercive step against the petitioner as well as issuing license to others for the aforesaid liquor during pendency of the writ petition.

2. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the very outset, submits that so far as the prayer no. (i) and part of prayer no. (ii) are concerned, the same have now become infructuous as the retail liquor licenses in question were granted to the petitioner for the financial year 2019-20. He also submits that so far as the impugned letter no. 896 dated 11.06.2020 is concerned, the petitioner’s application for renewal of licenses for the financial year 2020-21 has been rejected on the ground of dues against him pertaining to financial year 2019-20. Further vide order dated 27.04.2020, the respondent no. 4 has already rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal of aforesaid licenses and has forfeited the deposited security amount, excise transport duty, license fee etc. as well as the petitioner has been put on blacklist with a further observation that the appropriate action would be taken by instituting a certificate case for realisation of balance due amount from him.

3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 27.04.2020, the petitioner has also been put on the blacklist by the respondent no. 4 without issuing any prior notice intending to take such action against him. Moreover, since the blacklisting of the petitioner is for indefinite period, he will not be able to apply for grant of license in future under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1915 and the rules/policy framed thereunder by the state government. Hence, the present writ petition may be heard on the aspect of blacklisting of the petitioner.

4. Considering the said submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the Court proceeds to hear the case on the aspect of blacklisting of the petitioner.

5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the impugned order dated 27.04.2020, yet nothing has been stated as to whether any specific notice was issued to the petitioner intending to blacklist him for not depositing the amount of Rs.9,04,957/- which was due to be paid for the financial year 2019-20.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India & Another reported in (2021)2 SCC 551, has held as under:-

“14. Specifically, in