Blacklisting without notice or opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and requires disposal of representation.

The petitioner, an employee under the Excise Department, challenged the action of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (Respondents No. 2-4) for listing his name as a "blacklisted employee" on their official web-portal.

The blacklisting was predicated on the registration of FIR No. 66/2023 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Subsequently, on 22.11.2024, a competent criminal court acquitted the petitioner of all charges.

Despite this acquittal and a formal representation dated 29.05.2025 requesting the removal of his name, the respondents rejected his claim on 18.09.2025.

The petitioner approached the High Court alleging a violation of natural justice and seeking parity with a similar case, WPC No. 6615 of 2025.

1. Whether the continued inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the blacklist after judicial acquittal is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to reconsider the petitioner's status in light of the criminal court's judgment and the principle of due process.

Blacklisting—an action entailing serious civil consequences—cannot be resorted to without adherence to the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

Doctrine of parity in administrative actions.

Requirement that administrative authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders when deciding representations that affect an individual's livelihood and reputation.

The Court observed that the primary justification for blacklisting the petitioner was the pending excise case, which has since resulted in an acquittal.

While the respondents argued that the acquittal was not officially communicated through proper channels, the Court noted that the petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2025 was already pending consideration.

The Court reasoned that since the very basis of the blacklisting (the criminal case) had been obliterated by the trial court's judgment, the respondents were duty-bound to objectively re-examine the facts.

The administrative failure to rectify the web-portal despite the change in legal status necessitated judicial intervention to ensure the petitioner was not unfairly deprived of future employment opportunities.

The Court ordered the respondents to take into account the judgment of acquittal dated 22.11.2024 and, if necessary, afford the petitioner a personal hearing, passing a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days.