Blacklisting order issued without specific notice proposing such penalty violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a registered food catering firm, was awarded a contract following a tender process and subsequently deposited a bank guarantee

On December 8, 2017, the respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging violations of the agreement's terms and conditions

Although the petitioner submitted a reply, the respondents issued an impugned order on December 21, 2017, which simultaneously cancelled the work contract and blacklisted the petitioner firm

The petitioner challenged this order, though during proceedings, counsel confined the arguments strictly to the legality of the blacklisting

1. Whether the respondent authorities could validly blacklist the petitioner without issuing a specific show-cause notice indicating that blacklisting was a contemplated action

2. Whether the failure to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing specifically regarding the penalty of blacklisting violates the principles of natural justice

The court primarily applied the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2014) 9 SCC 105, which characterizes blacklisting as "civil death" and mandates that a noticee must be specifically informed of such contemplated action to allow them to show cause against that particular penalty

The court also referenced Chairman, Board of Mining Examination vs. Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256, emphasizing that while natural justice is flexible, it fundamentally requires that "no man shall be hit below the belt"

The court reasoned that blacklisting carries severe consequences and cannot be imposed as a collateral consequence of a general show-cause notice regarding contract violations

Following the ratio in Gorkha Security Services, the court observed that if blacklisting is not specifically proposed in the notice, the noticee is prejudiced because they are deprived of the opportunity to plead extenuating circumstances or request a lesser penalty

In the present case, while a show-cause notice was issued regarding contractual breaches, it did not specify blacklisting as a potential outcome, nor was a personal hearing afforded to the petitioner on this specific gravity of punishment

Consequently, the order failed the "anvil" of established judicial precedents regarding procedural propriety in administrative actions

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated December 21, 2017, strictly insofar as it related to the blacklisting of the petitioner

The remaining portion of the order concerning the cancellation of the work contract was affirmed

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs