Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Pawanhari Enterprises Through Proprietor Shri Vishesh Mittal – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Katghora District Korba (C.G.) – Respondent
WPC No. 3559 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Akhand Pratap
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Mr. Shashank Thakur
Due process must be followed in blacklisting to ensure fairness, necessitating a proper show-cause notice detailing allegations and proposed actions.
Headnote:(A) Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 - The petitioner challenges the blacklisting order, asserting denial of due process, specifically a lack of notice and opportunity for hearing - Court underscores the necessity for fair procedures before imposing severe sanctions like blacklisting. (Paras 2.1, 5, 8)
(B) Blacklisting - The court emphasizes that blacklisting amounts to 'civil death' and must follow rigorous procedural standards to ensure an adequate opportunity to contest allegations - Failure to provide specifics in a show-cause notice constitutes a breach of natural justice. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Judicial Review - The court cannot overstep unless procedural infirmities are apparent - If the decision-making process is valid, review is limited to procedural adherence. (Paras 4, 5)
(D) Remedies - While allowing the writ petition, the court emphasizes the Respondent's obligation to issue an appropriate notice before any punitive action. (Paras 9)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding the arbitrary nature of the blacklisting. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. importance of procedural fairness in blacklisting cases. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. requirement of detailed notice in blacklisting cases. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's decision to allow writ petition due to procedural lapse. (Para 8 , 9) |
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.07.2025
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18/06/2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.1, whereby, the petitioners’ firm has been blacklisted from participating in tenders of Nagar Palika Parishad, Katghora, for a period of one year, and its Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) has been forfeited, in connection with the tender issued in March, 2025. The relief clause is quoted below:-
“a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.1 Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Katghora, whereby the Petitioner has been debarred from participating in future tenders for a period of one year and the EMD has been forfeited;
b) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate in all ongoing and future tenders without any reference to the impugned blacklisting order;
c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief(s) as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
d) Cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.”
2. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 was passed by the Chief Municipal Officer (Respondent No.1) without issuing any notice, without granting any opportunity of hearing, and without any authority or resolution under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 . The action is patently illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He further submits that it is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr., 2025 INSC 236 , which mandates that blacklisting cannot be done arbitrarily or without following due process. The petitioner, being barred from participating in public tenders, is suffering irreparable harm. Learned counsel would further submit that with regard to blacklisting of the Petitioner for the period of 1 year, it is submitted that the same is totally arbitrary, illegal and against the well settled judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that blacklisting of any contractor has civil consequences thus before taking such extreme steps against any contractor principles of natural justice must be adhered to which in the present case, the Respondents have failed to do so.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 would submit that looking to the defaults committed on the part of the contractors, initially E.M.D. was forfeited and the defaulting contractors was barred from participating in the same tender work. In order to make the deterrent measure more effective, the governing body of the municipal council passed the resolutions to debar defaulter contractor from participating in the tender of municipal council for one year. The measure adopted has direct bearing on the civil amenities in the jurisdiction and also issuance of fresh tender puts unnecessary expenses on the state exchequer and due to the defaults committed by the contractors, the work is delayed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.
5. Blacklisting is a serious matter affecting commercial credibility in the business world. It has been described as a civil death also. There has to be a balance of competing interests with regard to the rights of the person entitled to supplies under t
