Withdrawal of a procedurally defective debarment order does not preclude fresh proceedings after notice.

The petitioner entered into a GeM contract with Respondent No. 3 on 10 December 2025 for the supply of goods.

The respondents alleged that the supplied goods failed to meet the prescribed standards.

On 27 June 2026, Respondent No. 3 debarred the petitioner for six months from participating in bids within the Area of Responsibility of Project Udayak, without issuing a prior show-cause notice and allegedly in breach of natural justice.

The petitioner challenged the debarment in W.P.(C) 11990/2026, which was disposed of on 19 August 2026 with a direction to treat the petition as a representation and decide it within one week.

Thereafter, the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 24 August 2026, followed by a further communication dated 8 September 2026 granting additional time to reply, proposing debarment for six months.

The original debarment order was withdrawn on 2 September 2026.

The petitioner consequently challenged both the withdrawn debarment order and the subsequent show-cause notices, alleging that the respondents were proceeding with a predetermined mind.

1. Whether the challenge to the debarment order dated 27 June 2026 survived after the order was withdrawn by the respondents and no punitive or consequential action remained operative?

2. Whether the show-cause notices dated 24 August 2026 and 8 September 2026 were liable to be quashed on the ground that they demonstrated a predetermined mind on the part of the respondents?

3. Whether the respondents were entitled to initiate fresh debarment proceedings after the earlier debarment order had been passed without notice and subsequently withdrawn?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person must be afforded an opportunity to respond before an order of debarment or blacklisting is passed.

It recognised that blacklisting or debarment has serious civil consequences and that authorities must not proceed with a predetermined mind.

In this context, the Court considered Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 343, where the Supreme Court held that blacklisting cannot be founded on allegations absent from the show-cause notice and that, given the grave consequences of blacklisting, the authority must approach the matter without a predetermined conclusion.

The Court further applied the effect of its earlier order directing the respondents to treat the previous writ petition as a representation and decide the matter afresh, thereby requiring the respondents to reconsider the matter after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The Court held that the petitioner’s principal grievance against the original debarment order no longer survived because the order had been withdrawn and the petitioner was no longer debarred.

The Court treated its earlier direction to decide the petitioner’s writ petition as a representation as placing the original debarment order in abeyance and requiring a fresh decision.

Accordingly, the issuance of the subsequent show-cause notices was viewed not as an implementation of an existing punitive order, but as part of a fresh decision-making process in which the petitioner was given 14 days, followed by an additional 10 days, to respond.

The Court distinguished Techno Prints, noting that in that case the impugned blacklisting was based on violations not mentioned in the show-cause notice, whereas the present notices set out the alleged violations and were issued pursuant to a direction for fresh consideration.

It further held that the mere withdrawal of the procedurally defective debarment order did not establish that the respondents had a predetermined mind or preclude them from examining the alleged violations through a lawful process.

The petitioner was granted two weeks to submit a substantive reply to the show-cause notices.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider that reply and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.