WP/23060/2026 of SANJAY Vs NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA on 16 August 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in debarring/blacklisting the petitioner for a period of 12.02.2025 to 12.02.2027 without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner or seeking explanation from him.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was engaged by respondent no.3-SATRA Services and Solutions Private Limited as Resident Engineer in connection with the project 4-Laning of NH-544D from Km 0.000 to Km 37.000 of Anantapur-Machukota Section (package-1) being executed under the aegis of the National Highways Authority of India, through its Project implementation Unit at Anantapur. The petitioner duly accepted the said offer of engagement and furnished his signed consent and declaration of commitment for deployment on the said project. It is the further case of the petitioner that as his mother fell seriously ill, the petitioner was compelled to remain at home to provide care and support and he had informed the authorized representative of respondent no.3 of his inability to join the project on the originally scheduled date and sought reasonable time and as his father, being of advanced age, also required the continued presence and care of the petitioner at native place, the petitioner communicated the genuine and unavoidable personal circumstance to respondent no.3 without expressing any intention of abandoning the assignment out of disregard, negligence or mala fide motive. It is his further case that despite the petitioner furnishing RC,J

complete explanation for his inability to join the project on the scheduled date and despite there being no willful default, misconduct or misrepresentation on his part, the respondent no.2 proceeded to debar him from engagement on projects of the National Highway Authority of India for a period of two years from 12.02.2025 to 12.02.2027 as reflected in the official debarment record/datalake maintained by respondent no.1. It is his further case that prior to passing the said debarment order, the petitioner was not issued any show-cause notice or communication of any nature by respondent no.2 or respondent no.1 informing the petitioner of the proposed action and therefore, without affording any opportunity to explain, the debarment order was passed, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 03.06.2026 while he was making inquiries in connection with a subsequent professional engagement. It is his further case that upon gaining knowledge of the said debarment, the petitioner addressed a detailed representation dated 03.06.2026 to respondent no.2, setting the true facts and circumstances leading to his inability to join the project and requesting for revocation of the order. Despite of considerable period of time, no response, decision or communication of any kind has been received from respondent no.2. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Kancharla Anish, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned Central Government counsel.

RC,J

4. Sri Kancharla Anish, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that debarring the petitioner without issuing any notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard is illegal and as there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice, the said debarment order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Whereas Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned Central Government counsel, justified the debarment orders passed and submitted there is no violation of any principles of natural justice as alleged by the learned counsel for petitioner and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. In UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held thus: “14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the State or a State Corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularised and unambiguous show-cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatisation that accrues to the person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts. This privilege arises because it is the State who is the counterparty in government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting take away this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person's reputation and brings the person's character into question. Blacklisting also has long-lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the blacklisted person.

21. Thus, from the above discussion, a clear legal position emerges that for a show-cause notice to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be

1. (2021) 2 SCC 551

RC,J

clearly inferred therefrom, that there is intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the noticee. Such a clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom the penalty of blacklisting is intended to be imposed, has an adequate, informed and meaningful opportunity to show cause against his possible blacklisting.”

7. In the instant case, admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the debarment order. It is not at all the contention of the learned Central Government counsel that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing debarment order. Therefore, there was glaring violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, without inviting counter, since whatever may be the contents of the counter would not satisfactorily explain the violation of principles of natural justice, this writ petition is disposed of.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the Debarment order passed against the petitioner dated 12.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2, as reflected in the official debarment record/datalake maintained by respondent no.1-National Highways Authority of India. This order does not preclude the authorities from taking action if they so desire in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17TH August, 2026.

RR