Authorities must objectively reconsider blacklisting representations and pass a reasoned order after hearing where necessary.

The petitioner, who was employed as the Main Salesman at a foreign liquor shop at Nawagarh, challenged the reflection of his name as a “blacklisted employee” on the respondents’ web portal.

Following a raid on 03.04.2024, a criminal case was registered against two salesmen concerning alleged adulteration of liquor; the petitioner claimed that he was not involved and had only acted as a witness.

The Department thereafter issued correspondence dated 03.09.2024 and 05.09.2024 recommending or facilitating his blacklisting.

The petitioner asserted that his name was blacklisted without a show-cause notice, inquiry, or opportunity of hearing, and that his representations dated 17.02.2026 and 05.06.2026 seeking removal of his name remained pending.

He also relied on orders in WPC Nos. 6615 of 2025 and 2158 of 2026, where similar names were directed to be removed from the blacklist.

The respondents contended that the petitioner’s name had been reflected on the basis of departmental records and that he should first approach the competent authority.

Whether the respondents’ failure to consider the petitioner’s representations seeking removal of his name from the blacklist required judicial intervention.

Whether the competent authority should reconsider the petitioner’s alleged blacklisting after examining the relevant materials and, if necessary, providing an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the Court should itself quash the blacklisting or adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness applicable to administrative action having adverse civil consequences, including blacklisting, particularly the requirement of objective consideration, an opportunity of hearing where necessary, and a reasoned and speaking order.

The competent authority must independently consider relevant materials and cannot reject a representation mechanically.

No specific statute or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the operative reasoning; the Court directed reconsideration strictly in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted two representations seeking removal of his name from the blacklisted category and that these representations were pending consideration.

Since the matter involved an adverse departmental action affecting the petitioner’s employment opportunities and reputation, the competent authority was required to examine the representations objectively, consider all relevant records—including the judgments cited by the petitioner—and, if necessary, afford him an opportunity of hearing before passing a reasoned order.

However, the Court declined to determine the factual or legal merits of the alleged blacklisting itself and left the matter for independent consideration by respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representations dated 17.02.2026 and 05.06.2026, take into account all relevant materials, including the orders dated 27.04.2026 and 06.05.2026, and provide a hearing if considered necessary.

A reasoned, justified, and speaking order was to be passed preferably within 45 days from receipt of the Court’s order.

No order as to costs was made.