Jharkhand HC Quashes Construction Firm’s Next-Tender Debarment: Show-Cause Notice Never Proposed It

The petitioner challenged a communication dated 11 November 2025 debarring it from participating in the respondents’ next tender.

The preceding show-cause notice dated 18 August 2025 called on the petitioner to expedite the work and remedy identified defects, warning that action under law might follow, but did not refer expressly or by implication to proposed debarment.

The petitioner responded on 26 September 2025, addressing the alleged defaults but not debarment.

It also sought directions for disposal of representations concerning release of payments and completion certificates.

Under Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105, a show-cause notice preceding blacklisting or debarment must identify both the alleged breaches and the proposed action, so the noticee can respond meaningfully to each.

This requirement was reiterated in Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 1 SCC 804; A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 520; and UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551.

The proposed blacklisting or debarment must be stated clearly or be clearly inferable from the notice; a reference elsewhere to blacklisting as an eligibility bar is insufficient.

The notice required the petitioner to expedite the work and remedy defects, and warned only that action under law could follow; it did not disclose that debarment was contemplated.

Although the petitioner responded on the merits, it had no opportunity to address the proposed debarment, and its response therefore did not amount to waiver or acquiescence.

Applying the principles in the cited authorities, the Court held that the notice failed to provide an adequate, informed opportunity to respond to the proposed penalty, rendering the debarment communication vulnerable.

As to the representations, the Court found no statutory or contractual basis for directing their disposal and could not determine whether the work was completed satisfactorily.

The respondents were not precluded from issuing a fresh show-cause notice clearly proposing debarment and deciding it according to law after giving the petitioner an adequate opportunity to respond; the merits of the alleged defaults were left open.

The Court declined to direct disposal of the representations concerning payments and completion certificates, leaving the petitioner to pursue any remedies available under law and leaving all related contentions open.

The rule was made partly absolute, with no order as to costs.