SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L R Y LABOUR CONTRACTOR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP_14193_2026



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.170 CWP-14193-2026

Date of decision : 12.05.2026

L. R. Y. Labour Contractor .…. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. J. S. Kaliraman, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A. G., Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4.

* * * * *

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1. Through this petition challenge is made to the order dated 30.04.2026

through which the petitioner has been blacklisted from entering into contracts with

the respondent-Market Committee, Ludhiana for a period of two years.

2. The penalty of debarment or as it is commonly referred to as

blacklisting, results in civil death of an entrepreneur. It has a huge adverse impact

on the person’s or entity’s reputation. Not only the present but also the future

business prospects are adversely affected. Therefore, such penalty cannot be

sustained if the imposition thereof is not preceded by a specific notice in this regard

to the affected person or entity.

3. It is not disputed that in the present case, before passing the impugned

order dated 30.04.2026, through which the petitioner was blacklisted, neither in this

regard any notice was served upon the petitioner nor was the petitioner afforded

any personal hearing. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

SHAMSHER SINGH

2026.05.15 10:17

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and haryana high court,

chandigarh

##PAGE2##

CWP-14193-2026 [ 2 ]

4. Our view finds support from the following observations by the

Supreme Court in UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of

India and another-(2021) 2 SCC 551:-

“13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised

jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or

whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable

opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that

before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected

party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such

notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the

penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously.

An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without

jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian

General, Evacuee Property, Lucknow and Anr., (1980) 3 SCC 1 has held that

it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of

which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer

the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be

said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.

14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the

state or a state corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularized and

unambiguous show cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe

consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatization that accrues to the

person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept

of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it.

Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged

opportunity of entering into government contracts. This privilege arises

because it is the State who is the counterparty in government contracts and as

such, every eligible person is to be afforded an equal opportunity to participate

in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does

blacklisting takes away this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person’s

reputation and brings the person’s character into question. Blacklisting also

has long-lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the

bl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top