A blacklisting order that travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice and is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.

Order

31/07/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

“In view of the facts stated above and the grounds urged herein, the Petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12/06/2025, passed by the Respondent No. 2, as being arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. And;

2. Quash the unreasonable and illegal blacklisting/debarment and other incidental proceedings that have arisen due to the blacklisting of the instant petitioner for three years. And;

3. Issue directions, to the respondent no. 2 to act with fairness and decide the representation as sent by the instant petitioner on 17/06/2025, while affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to present its defence. And;

4. Issue directions, to the respondent no. 2, to grant access to the instant petitioner to the online portal of RGHS and to provide all the findings of the QCPA to the instant petitioner along with all other documents related to Petitioner. And;

5. Issue directions, to restrain the concerned respondents, who have been marked and informed by the respondent no. 2 by office order bearing no. 125 dated 12/06/2025 (impugned order), to take requisite action against the instant petitioner. And/Or;

6. Pass any other such order as the Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the interest of justice and in favour of the petitioner.

2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) has been blacklisted from participating in other tender processes for a period of three years and a prayer has also been made in the writ petition to issue a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation

submitted by the petitioner on 17.06.2025, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present his defence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Third Party Administrator (TPA) for the Rajasthan Government Health Scheme (RGHS) for a period commencing from 21.06.2022, pursuant to an agreement dated 01.07.2022. Counsel submits that initially the aforesaid contract was awarded to the petitioner for a period of two years but on account of satisfactory performance/services of the petitioner, the contact was extended on three separate occasions. Counsel submits that the petitioner duly completed the assigned work until the contract ended on 04.02.2025. Counsel submits that a few months after completion of the work, a show cause notice dated 20.05.2025 was served upon the petitioner wherein certain allegations were levelled against him. The said notice was received by the petitioner on the next date and in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply on 23.05.2025. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled in the show cause notice were vague and lacked material particulars. Hence, the petitioner requested the respondents to provide access to the relevant portal so as to enable him to furnish a comprehensive an detailed reply. Counsel submits that without considering the petitioner’s reply and without affording him any opportunity of hearing, the respondents straightaway proceeded to pass the

order impugned dated 12.06.2025, whereby the petitioner has been debarred/blacklisted from participating in other tender processes for a period of three years. Counsel submits that the impugned order, which runs into several pages, clearly sets out the grounds and reasons that go beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Counsel submits that the blacklisting order travels beyond the show cause notice and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Counsel s