Debarment requires a valid show-cause notice to comply with principles of natural justice.

1. Heard Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rishiraj Nath and Mr. Rounak Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents - State.

2. By our order dated 15.05.2023, learned counsel for the State was allowed time to file response positively so far as the question of debarment is concerned. The order reads as under :
"The petitioner approached this Court against the termination of the agreement dated 07.01.2019 vide letter No.7300-04 dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure - 44) whereunder not only the agreement has been terminated but the performance security, security deposit both have been forfeited to the full extent and apart from that petitioner has been debarred from participating in any tendering process for any work if further advertised from Government of Tripura and blacklisted.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State we are of the prima facie view that the issue of termination of agreement is not required to be gone into in writ jurisdiction as the petitioner has an alternative remedy through arbitration or before the competent Civil Court, more so, for the reason that the adjudication on the subject may involve determination on disputed questions of fact and evidence as may be required to be adduced by the rival parties. However, so far as the debarment of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is without consideration of the reply to the show - cause furnished by the petitioner and also shows complete non - application of mind. The debarment and blacklisting is for indefinite period of time which in effect ousts the petitioner from carrying on trade and business as is guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also in teeth of the settled decisions of the Apex Court such as M/s .Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. versus State of West Bengaland another reported in 1975 (1) SCC 70:(AIROnLine 1974 SC 6) and Gorkha Security ServicesversusGovernment (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in 2014 (9) SCC 105 :(AIR 2014 SC 3371).
Learned counsel for the State is allowed 10 days time to file response positively so far as the question of debarment is concerned.
Let the matter appear on 29.05.2023."

3. Learned Advocate General appears on behalf of the State and submits on instructions that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage for the respondent - State / employer to take a fresh decision in accordance with law as regards the issue of blacklisting is concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of blacklisting is vitiated on both counts. (i) That it was not preceded by any proper show - cause notice as would be revealed by the two show - cause notices at Annexure - 37 and Annexure - 39 dated 15.12.2023 and dated 23.12.2022. (ii) Both the show - cause notices actually refer to the proposed termination of the contract; imposition of penalty in terms of the liquidated damages clause; forfeiture of performance guarantee in full extent and recovery of amount pay with interest but no reference to any proposed blacklisting. The show - cause notice apparently did not contain any charges as to why the employer proposes to impose the penalty of blacklisting upon the petitioner. The order of blacklisting operates not only vis - a - vis the State of Tripura but pan India in respect of any tender where the petitioner could be an eligible participant. As such, it affects the right to carry on business and occupation under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Gorkha Security