Show-cause notice must specifically propose the penalty of blacklisting to satisfy principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner, a company providing airport services at DABH Airport, Indore, challenged an order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Airport Authority of India (AAI).

The order blacklisted the Petitioner from participating in AAI tenders for three years.

The debarment was based on alleged non-payment of dues by another entity, M/s Aurea Sivasurchetvaka Aircab GH services Indore Pvt. Ltd., which shared a common Director with the Petitioner.

The AAI had issued a show-cause notice on 30.01.2025, which mentioned "appropriate action" but did not specifically propose blacklisting or debarment.

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy under the AAI Commercial Manual.

1. Whether a blacklisting order is legally sustainable if the preceding show-cause notice fails to specifically mention the proposed penalty of debarment.

2. Whether the existence of an alternative appellate remedy bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction when principles of natural justice are violated.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India regarding fairness in administrative action.

Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & others (2014) 9 SCC 105, which established that a show-cause notice must state the "particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken" to provide a meaningful opportunity to the noticee.

M/s Nirved Namdeo v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. (W.P. No. 21058/2017), affirming that the absence of a specific notice for blacklisting renders the alternative remedy irrelevant.

The court found that while the show-cause notice referred to Clause 12(e) of the NIT regarding eligibility, it was "conspicuously silent" about the invocation of the penal debarment provisions under Clause 9(b).

Applying the Gorkha Security Services ratio, the court reasoned that "appropriate action" is too vague to satisfy the requirement of natural justice, as it fails to inform the noticee of the severity of the proposed consequences.

Furthermore, the court determined that since the impugned order was passed in gross violation of Article 14—denying the Petitioner the chance to argue for a lesser penalty or explain extenuating circumstances—the alternative remedy was not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction.

The court also noted that the impugned order failed to reflect upon the merits of the matter.

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the order dated 25.03.2025 was quashed. The court granted the Respondents liberty to issue a fresh, specific show-cause notice citing proper penal provisions and to pass a new order after providing a due opportunity of hearing.