M/S OMTRON POWER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR vs STATE OF ODISHA

Court
Odisha High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


W.P.(C) No.34100 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010817632026

M/s. OMTRON Power System Pvt.
Ltd., Bhubaneswar
…. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties
….


Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate
along with
Ms. Soma Patnaik, Advocate

For Opposite Parties-State : Ms. Biswabara Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel


CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 16 October, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The order inflicting debarment upon for the Petitioner is
challenged on a solitary ground that the show cause notice issued to
the Petitioner does not contemplate such action to be taken against
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(C) No.34100 of 2026

him rather there is absolute ambiguity in contemplation of taking
action evident on a bare look. The operative portion of the show cause
issued to the petitioner reveals that the authorities contemplated to
take appropriate action against the Petitioner under applicable
rules/terms and conditions on the ground which is narrated and
adumbrated in the preceding paragraphs in the show cause notice. A
plea is sought to be taken that in the show cause notice ultimate action
contemplated against the Petitioner must be specific and no ambiguity
should be there. In the event, the ultimate decision the authorities
intended to take, is not clearly discernible from the language used
therein and ambiguity can be seen therefrom, it cannot be regarded as
a sufficient opportunity given to the person against whom the action is
contemplated.
2. The aforesaid principles can be fortified from the judgment
of the Apex Court rendered in UMC Technologies Private Limited
vrs. Food Corporation of India and another : (2021) 2 SCC 551
wherein it is held:
“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
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(C) No.34100 of 2026

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., 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 blacklisted
person.”
3. It is thus evident from the law enunciated in the above
quoted decision that the authority while issuing the show cause notice
must specifically and unambiguously indicate the action to be taken
against the noticee firm and the consequence that would flow
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C) No.34100 of 2026

therefrom. In the event any ambiguity in ultimate consequences is
perceived from the language used in the notice, it does not confirm to
be mandate given in the above quoted decision delivered by the
Supreme Court.
4. It is no longer res integra that the debarment and black
listing is in effect a civil death where a person or an entity is
prevented from participating in any process by the
Government/authority intended to create contractual relationship.
Time and again the Court has emphasized against imposition of
ban/debarment/blacklisting to operate perpetually as a person cannot
receive a civil death throughout his life, but has applied the doctrine of
proportionality in restricting the period of debarment/blacklisting to
be within certain time depending upon the gravity and seriousness of
the allegations made against the entity/person.
The moment the action of the tender issuing authority
invites serious consequences there should be a clarity in the show
cause not only on the facts leading to consequences to follow but also
clarity regarding the consequences that the authorities intend to inflict
upon the noticee.
5. In the instant case mere reference to the terms and
conditions or the rules does not confirm to such mandate as it is
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(C) No.34100 of 2026

always perceived to be ambiguous and therefore, the show cause
notice being foundation leading to an ultimate decision is infirm and
not conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court. Once the
foundation is removed the super structure standing thereupon would
fall automatically.
6. We therefore, hold that not only the show cause but the
order inflicting the blacklisting is not tenable being violative of the
low enunciated in this regard and the same are set aside. However, it
will not restrain the authorities to take further action on the self-same
cause of action upon adhering strictly to the principles as laid herein.
7. The Writ Petition is allowed and stands disposed of.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) (Harish Tandon)
Judge Chief Justice












Amit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Oct-2026 10:48:23
Page 5 of 5
W.P.(C) No.34100 of 2026