An order of debarment, involving serious civil consequences, must be passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. A show cause notice issued prior to the execution of a formal agreement cannot be considered a valid notice for a subsequent debarment order.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner in the present writ application.

“1 (i) Quashing of the ex parte order as contained in Letter No. 769 dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/7) by which, the Respondent No. 4, without issuing any Show Cause Notice and absolutely without jurisdiction has debarred the petitioner from participating in any further tender till the time desired progress in the work/project is not achieved;

(ii) Restraining the Respondent from taking any coercive and giving effect to the order of debarment as contained in Letter No. 769 dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/7) during the pendency of the present writ application and/or the without the leave of this Hon’ble Court.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner participated in a tender floated by the respondent authorities, and was declared successful. Pursuant thereto, a Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioner dated 05.02.2025, and a provisional work order was issued dated 19.02.2025. The work/construction was to be started from 19.02.2025 itself, and was to be completed by 18.02.2026. Thereafter, an agreement was also executed between the parties dated 26.05.2025. Subsequently, on 27.06.2025 the authorities issued a debarment order against the petitioner on the ground that desired progress in the work has not been achieved. It was further alleged by the authorities that the petitioner has not shown any interest in completion of the said work and therefore, the order of debarment is being passed which will be effective till the desired progress in work is not achieved. By way of filing the present writ application, the petitioner has challenged the debarment order dated 27.06.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned action of debarment was taken against him. It is submitted that the action of debarment being in nature of serious civil consequence requires an issuance of show cause notice, and therefore, the impugned order passed by authorities is in grave violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that even after the issuance of work order, there was an encroachment existing on the site of construction. It is submitted that after the concerned circle officer submitted the measurement/demarcation of the construction site dated 05.05.2025, the petitioner and respondent authorities entered into an agreement dated 26.05.2025 whereafter, the petitioner commenced the work.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-state submits that a work order was issued to the petitioner on 19.02.2025, and the petitioner was supposed to start the work from 19.02.2025 itself. It is further submitted that the site for the work was also made available to the petitioner on 18.02.2025. It is submitted that despite several reminders given to the petitioner to start and complete the said work, the petitioner failed to do so, and the desired progress in the work was not achieved. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already been issued a show cause notice dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure – R/C to the counter-affidavit), contemplating the action of the debarment against the petitioner. It is thus submitted that the impugned order