IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 730 of 2026

M/S ROOPLAL DAULATRAM MANDSAUR

Versus

THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Amit Singh Sisodia - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Bhaskar Agrawal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.

ORDER per the requirement of the NIT condition was not the same whose details were mentioned in the tender document. The impugned order is only a show cause notice and the petitioner has been granted time to file the reply. There is no allegation of malafide or lack of competence, therefore, in absence of any allegation of malafide, the petition cannot be entertained against a show cause notice.

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India challenging the notice dated 23.12.2025 by which the petitioner has been given show cause notice proposing blacklisting of the petitioner,

termination of the ongoing contract and cancellation of registration.

02. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of

show cause notice is merely an eyewash and the respondents have already

determined to cancel the contract and to blacklist the petitioner.

03. Upon perusal of the impugned show cause notice, we find that the

notice has been issued for suspension of registration of the petitioner / blacklisting on the ground that on verification of the tender documents of the petitioner, the Regional Transport Officer had found that the Motor Grader as

04. In the case of (2004) 3 SCC 440, Special Director and another vs.

Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of the High Court in entertaining the writ petitions questioning the legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. The relevant extract from the said decision is reproduced as under :-

"5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court, Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted."

05. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in its later judgment reported as (2006) 12 SCC 33, Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein it was held as under :-

"9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdi