M/S Gunjan Construction, through One of Its Partner Mr. Amardeep Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

 2026:JHHC:19166-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3645 of 2025

¶3

M/s. Gunjan Construction, having its registered office at VillageBishunpura, PO & PS-Bishunpura, District-Garhwa, through one of its partner Mr. Amardeep Kumar Gupta, S/o Sri Mukhadev Prasad Gupta, R/o Village-Bishunpura, PO & PS-Bishunpura, DistrictGarhwa ... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa

¶7

The District Supply Officer, Garhwa

¶8

... … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Suman, Advocate Ms. Pragunee Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to GP-II

¶13

¶14

Order No. 05

¶15

Dated: 01.07.2026

¶16

1. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, who appears with Mrs. Shweta

¶17

Suman and Ms. Pragunee Kashyap for the petitioner and

¶18

Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned GP-II for the State.

¶19

2. Rule.

¶20

3. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

4. The petitioner, by instituting this petition, has challenged the following two actions of the respondents as reflected in the impugned communication dated 28.06.2025:-

¶22

(a) The action of cancelling the petitioner’s contract, withholding of 40% of the amounts which the petitioner claims were due; and forfeiture of the security deposit amount;

¶23

¶24

 2026:JHHC:19166-DB

¶25

(b) The action of blacklisting the petitioner

¶26

for an indefinite or indeterminate term.

¶27

5. Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that for the present, the petitioner will

¶28

only press the challenge regarding blacklisting of the petitioner for an indefinite or indeterminate term. She, however, seeks liberty for the petitioner to agitate the issue of termination of the contract, forfeiture of security deposit and non-payment of the amounts claimed by the petitioner for execution of the contract by instituting appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.

¶29

6. Thus, this petition is now restricted to the issue of blacklisting of the petitioner for an indefinite or indeterminate period.

¶30

7. The record shows that before blacklisting the petitioner, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner specifying that such blacklisting was in contemplation. Even from the perusal of the notice issued for termination of the contract, it is not discernable that any action of blacklisting was proposed.

¶31

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 105 and UMC TECHNOLOGIES

¶32

PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF

¶33

INDIA AND ANR., (2021) 2 SCC 551 , has held that a

¶34

¶35

 2026:JHHC:19166-DB

¶36

valid show cause notice must clearly indicate the precise action proposed, including blacklisting, either expressly or by necessary implication. Since blacklisting carries serious civil and commercial consequences, failure to specify it in the notice deprives the affected party of a meaningful opportunity to respond.

¶37

9. On the above ground therefore, the action of blacklisting the petitioner will have to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

¶38

10. Further, there is an additional infirmity in the blacklisting order inasmuch as the blacklisting is for an indefinite or indeterminate period.

¶39

11. In the case of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL and Others , (2014) 14 SCC 731 and Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 1 SCC 804, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that blacklisting or debarment cannot be for an indefinite or indeterminate period. On this ground also, therefore, the impugned blacklisting order will have to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The setting aside of the blacklisting order on the above two grounds will, however, not preclude the respondents from complying with the principles of natural justice and from issuing a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and then disposing of such show cause notice in

¶40

¶41

 2026:JHHC:19166-DB

¶42

accordance with law and on its own merits after complying with the principles of natural justice and fair play.

¶43

12. All contentions of all parties in this regard are left open.

¶44

13. Similarly, we grant the petitioner liberty to agitate the issues of termination of the agreement, non-payment of alleged dues, the forfeiture of security deposit by instituting an appropriate action before the appropriate forum.

¶45

14. Again, all contentions in this regard are left open since we have not adjudicated upon the same.

¶46

15. The rule is made absolute to the above extent.

¶47

16. The writ petition is partly allowed to the above extent without any order for costs.

¶48

July 01, 2026 Manish/Ritesh

¶49

Uploaded on 03.07.2026

¶50

M/S Gunjan Construction, through One of Its Partner Mr. Amardeep Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gunjan Construction, through One of Its Partner Mr. Amardeep Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Sultan Ahmad Vs Managing Director Bokaro Steel Plant

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Vs Keshav Narayan Singh

MD Jasimuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Hanumant Construction Private Ltd. Thr One of the Authorized Rep. Jitendra Singh Rana Vs Central Coalfields Ltd, Represented by the General Manager (Cmc)

M/S. Guljarilal Mahto, through Its Proprietor Guljarilal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Dept. of Energy, Govt. of Jharkhand

M/S Uday Singh and Brothers through Its Proprietor Uday Singh, Vs C. C. L. through Its Cmd