ORDER :

B. S. Bhanumathi, J.

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ, order or writ of mandamus directing the respondents to quash the respective orders and proceedings, including penalty demand and blacklist status of the petitioner and issue consequential directions permitting the petitioner to continue his lawful business.

2. The case of the petitioner is, stated briefly, as follows:

a. The petitioner is a registered retail dealer in fertilizers carrying on business under a licence and authorizations issued by the competent authorities. The respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice vide memo No. AGRI-FER/06/2024 TA(T3), dated 25.09.2024 under Section 22 of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985 alleging some violations. The petitioner furnished an explanation to the show cause notice. Without considering the explanation, the department levied a penalty of Rs. 51,499.50/-. The amount of penalty was paid by the petitioner. Despite such payment, the respondents put the petitioner in a blacklist and rejected the petitioner’s application for inclusion in the Form-O category which is essential for fertilizer dealership.

b. In spite of request made by the petitioner to remove its name from blacklist, no action has been taken. Since about September, 2024, the petitioner has not been permitted to do business. Hence, this writ petition was filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period is illegal for non-consideration of the explanation and failure to give reasons. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kulja Industries Limited,  Vs. Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. B.S.N.L. & others, Civil Appeal No.8944 of 2013, dated 04.10.2013. wherein it was held at paragraphs Nos. 26 and 27 as follows:

“26. The next question then is whether this Court ought to itself determine the time period for which the appellant should be blacklisted or remit the matter back to the authority to do so having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances. A remand back to the competent authority has appealed to us to be a more appropriate option than an order by which we may ourselves determine the period for which the appellant would remain blacklisted. We say so for two precise reasons. Firstly, because blacklisting is in the nature of penalty the quantum whereof is a matter that rests primarily with the authority competent to impose the same. In the realm of service jurisprudence this Court has no doubt cut short the agony of a delinquent employee in exceptional circumstances to prevent delay and further litigation by modifying the quantum of punishment but such considerations do not apply to a company engaged in a lucrative business like supply of optical fibre/HDPE pipes to BSNL. Secondly, because while determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective the respondent-Corporation may for the sake of objectivity and transparency formulate broad guidelines to be followed in such cases. Different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. While, it may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate all types of offences and acts of misdemeanour, or violations of contractual obligations by a contractor, the respondent-Corporation may do so as far as possible to reduce if not totally eliminate arbitrariness in the exercise of the power vested in it and inspire confidence in the fairness of the order which the competent authority may pass against a defaulting contractor.

27. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and allow writ petition No.2289 of 2011 filed by the appellant but only to the extent that while the order blacklisting the appellant shall stand affirmed, the period for which such order remains operative shall be determined afresh by the competent authority on the basis o