WP(C)/35140/2025 of MINAKSHI SWAIN Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 19 August 2026

ORDER

19.08.2026

02.

1. The petitioner challenges the debarment/blacklisting order dated 1st November, 2025 primarily on the ground that no opportunity to defend and of hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor any show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner.

2. On 19th January, 2026, we recorded the aforesaid submission advanced by the petitioner and directed the State to produce the documents relating to the service of the show cause notice dated 31st

July, 2025 issued by the Under Secretary to Government of Odisha, Health and Family Welfare Department. The said letter is in the form of a show cause notice issued upon the petitioner as to why the order of blacklisting the firm in participating in the future tender process be not imposed as the petitioner only supplied twenty two office stationery items and five computer consumable items only.

3. The instructions received by the learned Additional Government Advocate does not reveal that the said show cause notice which was a foundation for passing of impugned order of blacklisting and/or debarment was served upon the petitioner. It is a cardinal principle of law that the order of blacklisting has a serious civil consequence and at times is treated as akin to a civil death. It prevents the person from entering into a public contract and also put any stigma in the commercial world.

4. Considering the nature of the consequences that flows from the order of debarment, it has been uniformly held by the Courts of the country that a person cannot be condemned nor punished unless afforded an adequate opportunity to defend and of hearing. The principles of natural justice has ingrained into the constitutional ethos embraced by the citizen of the country and the violation thereof is regarded as an invasion of the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

5. In State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject Limited, (2022) 4 SCC 393, the apex Court held that order of blacklisting after issuance of the show cause notice shall meet the requirement of the natural justice and it is not conceivable that the authority would proceed with the predetermined mind. It is further held that the doctrine of proportionality is also to be taken into account in juxtaposition with the gravity of the misconduct and debarment of a person to participate in a public contract should be done ensuring a fair, transparent and reasonable manner. Even a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Artatran Bhuyan v. State of Odisha, 2025 (II) ILR-CUT-1042 in unequivocal terms held that the order of debarment and/or blacklisting cannot be imposed upon the person without issuing a show cause notice and ensuring the adequate opportunity of hearing.

6. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no document forthcoming evincing the service of the show cause notice upon the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order of debarment and/or blacklisting passed by the authority suffers from the vice of the violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed.

7. It is open to the authority to proceed against the petitioner by serving a show cause notice and affording an adequate opportunity to defend and of hearing. The authority shall not be swayed by the fact that the earlier order of blacklisting and/or debarment is quashed by this Court as this Court has no occasion to enter into the merit of the same, but interfered solely on the ground that the said order suffers from non-adherence of the principles of natural justice.

8. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

S.K. Guin/PA Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2026 10:35:01 Signature Not Verified