Blacklisting without a specific show-cause notice violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was awarded a contract to erect 33 towers for the Police Department.

The State paid for 13 towers but alleged that the remaining 20 did not meet the tender specifications.

In a letter dated 26 February 2026, the State directed the petitioner to rectify the alleged deficiencies by 15 March 2026, warning that the security deposit would be forfeited and blacklisting proceedings initiated if it failed to do so.

The State subsequently blacklisted the petitioner by order dated 16 June 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order, arguing that it had not received a specific show-cause notice or an opportunity to respond to the proposed blacklisting.

1. Whether the petitioner was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond before being blacklisted.

2. Whether the blacklisting order could stand despite the absence of an independent show-cause notice concerning blacklisting.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, requiring the tendering authority to provide a person with an opportunity to show cause before imposing blacklisting.

A notice requiring rectification of contractual deficiencies, even if it warns that blacklisting proceedings may follow, is not a substitute for an opportunity to answer why blacklisting should not be imposed.

No statute or precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The letter of 26 February 2026 gave the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the alleged defects and warned that blacklisting proceedings would be initiated if it did not do so.

However, the authority did not initiate a separate blacklisting process or issue a specific show-cause notice before passing the impugned order.

The petitioner therefore had no opportunity to address the proposed blacklisting or to present its position on whether the towers complied with the tender specifications.

The Court held that this procedural omission violated natural justice.

Because the blacklisting order set out the grounds relied on, the Court directed that it be treated as a show-cause notice to avoid further delay.

It directed the petitioner to submit a show-cause reply within 30 days, treating the impugned order as the notice, and directed the authority to proceed in accordance with law after receiving the reply, providing a hearing if necessary.

The petition was allowed to that extent.