Blacklisting or debarment constitutes "civil death" and impacts the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g); therefore, the principles of natural justice, specifically the issuance of a show cause notice, are mandatory regardless of whether the contract explicitly requires it.

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.-

1. Often the question arises in the spate of litigations poured into the docket of this Court as to whether the issuance of show cause notice before the authorities proceeded to blacklist or debar the person is mandatory, even if there is no specific provisions contained in the contract or the statutory document in this regard.

2. The instant case is one of such example where the tender floated by the opposite party-authorities does not contain any specific provisions for a show cause notice to be issued before the authorities embarked its journey of imposing the blacklisting order based upon a false affidavit or disclosure of wrong information.

3. Several pleas have been taken on the factual aspects by the rival parties touching upon the conduct of the petitioner attributable to the participation in the tender process and the submission of an affidavit but we need not delve upon the same as the legal issues involved in the instant writ petition is whether the show cause notice is imperative before the authorities proceed to inflict the order of debarment/blacklisting in absence of any express provisions in the tender call notice or the others binding documents between the parties.

4. To complete the sequel of the facts the reliance is heavily placed upon by the petitioner to the Freight Marketing Circular No.11 of 2022 issued by the competent authority containing the exhaustive provision relating to barring of the firms. According to the petitioner, the said policy or the standard conditions of the contract for the commercial earning is ratified and vetted by a letter dated 13.06.2022 issued by the Ministry of Railways, and, therefore, the authorities cannot depart from adhering the said Freight Marketing Circular No.11 of 2022.

5. Mr.Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India took a stand that the clause pertaining to the barring of the firm has its restricted applicability to a situation and/or the incidences given therein and any other circumstances warranting the passing of a blacklisting order cannot be impliedly included therein, and, therefore, such Freight Marketing Circular has no manner of application in the instant case.

6. Be that as it may, whether the said Freight Marketing Circular has any applicability or not may not be a sole determinant factor as we find that even if there is no provision for issuance of the show cause, whether the imposition of the order of blacklisting can be sustained on the anvil of the principles of natural justice.

7. It is no gainsaying that the blacklisting or debarment has an effect of eliminating a person from participating in any contract with the Government nor will have any such privilege and advantage of entering into the contract with the Government agencies. It is, in effect, deprived a person from having any commercial relationship with the Government or its agencies and has an impact on the right to trade or profession as provided under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Such fundamental right is always subject to the established procedure of law and in the event it is found that the person has committed a gross error or violated the terms and conditions of the contract, there is no fetter in debarring such person to participate in any tender, nor will be entitled to establish a contractual relationship with the public authority. In such sense, it is