Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
K.K. Mahajan Constructions – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P – Respondent
CWP No. 96 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suneet Goel, Vivek Negi
For the Respondents: Anup Rattan, Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Menka Raj Chauhan, Seema Sharma, Rajat Choudhry

Blacklisting of a contractor must adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring a specific show cause notice containing proposed penalties. Furthermore, permanent or indefinite blacklisting is impermissible; the duration must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and determined through a fair disciplinary process.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Blacklisting and Debarment - Contractual disputes - Requirement of show cause notice is fundamental to satisfy principles of natural justice and must state both the grounds for the proposed action and the specific penalty intended (Paras 3, 4(i), 4(iii)).

(B) Administrative Law - Indefinite Blacklisting - Principles of Proportionality - Debarment should not be permanent and should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence, as blacklisting for an indefinite period is unsustainable in law (Paras 4(ii), 4(iii)).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a government contractor who was blacklisted and de-enlisted following the collapse of a construction project. The authorities issued orders debarring the petitioner from all future tenders and terminating the agreement. The petitioner challenged these orders on the ground that they were issued without proper show cause notice and that the blacklisting was for an indefinite period, in violation of principles of natural justice and the relevant departmental rules.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while one earlier show cause notice was sufficient for the initial debarment order, the subsequent order for total and permanent blacklisting across all jurisdictions was issued without a fresh show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the specific disciplinary rules applicable.

Issues: Whether the orders of blacklisting and de-enlistment were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and whether an indefinite period of blacklisting is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a show cause notice must detail both the imputations and the specific nature of the proposed action. Furthermore, a total and permanent blacklisting without specific notice and hearing violates natural justice. Debarment must be for a defined duration proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the contractor must always be granted an opportunity to rebut the allegations.

Result: Petition disposed of; the impugned order of permanent blacklisting was set aside and converted into a show cause notice to allow for a proper legal proceeding.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding the construction contract, bridge collapse, and subsequent debarment orders against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions regarding the breach of natural justice and the validity of indefinite blacklisting. (Para 3)
3. legal standard for show-cause notices and procedural fairness in administrative blacklisting of contractors. (Para 4)
4. court order directing due process and proper adjudication of the debarment and blacklisting actions. (Para 5)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner has been blacklisted in perpetuity by the respondents across all jurisdictions. He has also been de-listed as Class-A Contractor. Petitioner alleges violation of principles of natural justice as also of the Enlistment Rules.

2. The Case

2(i). Petitioner was enlisted Class-A Civil Contractor under the Rules of Enlistment of Contractors of the respondents-State. His enlistment has been reviewed from time to time. It was last reviewed on 18.05.2022 and validated upto 31.03.2027.

On 20.09.2018, petitioner was awarded tender for construction of 104 meters Span Bridge over Baner Khad on Daulatpur Jalari Har Kharat road for a sum of ₹3,42,07,077/-. The work was to be completed within 18 months. Petitioner commenced the work but did not complete within the stipulated period. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited specific reference to Clause-45 of the Standard Lump Sum Tender document pertaining to submission and approval of designs and drawings in an endevour to co-relate said clause with several documents on record to contend that delay in completion of work was not at the end of the petitioner.

The above assertion has been strongly disputed by learned Advocate General while submitting that petitioner alone was responsible for the delay in the execution of public interest project. The work is still stated to be incomplete.

2(ii). On 10.04.2023, arch of the Span Bridge collapsed. It appears several meetings were held between the respondent-State officials and the petitioner to ascertain the reasons for collapse of arch as also for expeditious completion of the tendered work. Reference to these details is being avoided in this writ petition in view of grounds urged during hearing of the case for seeking restricted relief.

2(iii). On 04.08.2023, respondents issued an office order giving gist of several meetings convened in relation to the project work and finally, debarring the petitioner under this order, from participating in any tender within the jurisdiction of Kangra Division of the respondent Public Works Department till the satisfactory completion of tendered work. This was without prejudice to the right of the government to take any other action under other clauses of the contract agreement as also the Enlistment Rules. Relevant portion of the office order dated 04.08.2023 is extracted as under:-

“Whereas, 3rd meeting was conducted on 20th July, 2023. During meeting, the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Kangra intimated that the firm/contractor was clearly directed to submit his proposal alongwith construction sequences and working programme for approval and get his design rechecked in is presence or his consultant/ Engineer, if required. No Compliance has been received from the contractor till date. At present, there are no any construction activities at site and site is in abandoned condition. The notice has also been served to the contractor under different clauses of the contract agreement but to of no avail.

Whereas, as per statement of Superintending Engineer, 5th Circle, HPPWD, Palampur and Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Kangra, it is amply clear that the contractor is not taking matter seriously and trying to make lame excuses which leads to considerable delay in execution of work. The contractor has failed to submit proposal for reconstruction of collapsed bridge despite lapse of approximately four month’s period which clearly shows that contractor/ firm is not keenly interested to comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAJyotsna Rewal Dua, JK.K. Mahajan Constructions – AppellantVersusState of H.P – RespondentCWP No. 96 of 2025

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
K.K. Mahajan Constructions – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P – Respondent
CWP No. 96 of 2025