Blacklisting requires prior notice and hearing and cannot be imposed indefinitely.

Respondent No. 3, the District Supply Officer/Controller, District Rewa, blacklisted the petitioner-Samiti for an indefinite period by order dated 7 June 2024.

The Samiti challenged the order, asserting that it had not received an opportunity of hearing and that blacklisting for an indefinite period was impermissible.

The State’s counsel conceded that the order was made without a hearing and imposed blacklisting for an indefinite period.

Whether the blacklisting order was invalid because the Samiti was not given an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed

Whether blacklisting for an indefinite period was legally sustainable

The Court relied on Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731, and Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 804, for the principle that blacklisting or debarment cannot be for an indefinite or indeterminate period.

It also relied on Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi), cited in the judgment as (2014) 9 SCC 105 at paragraph 2, for the requirement that a person facing blacklisting must be notified of the proposed action and given an opportunity to respond.

The judgment reproduces the principle that blacklisting is a severe measure with serious consequences and that the noticee must have an opportunity to address why it should not be imposed.

The impugned order failed on both grounds raised: the State conceded that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded, and that the blacklisting was for an indefinite period.

Applying the principles on procedural fairness and the impermissibility of indefinite debarment, the Court held the order unsustainable.

It made no order as to costs.