Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh Tomar vs State Of M.P. on 30 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397
1 WP-3844-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 30 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3844 of 2013
JITENDRA SINGH TOMAR
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.S.Tomar - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claims the following reliefs:
"(i) The order dated 26.02.2013, Annexure-P/1 passed by respondent No.5 rescinding the contract of petitioner and order dated 02.03.2013, Annexure-P/2 for cancellation of registration of petitioner passed by respondent No.3 and NIT (Annexure-P/4) inviting tender for maintenance and dismantling of Pontoon bridge in question passed by respondent No.5 be quashed.
(ii) The respondents deserve to be suitably directed to release payment of work already done by petitioner forthwith.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in nature of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of case;
(iv) Cost of the petition may also be allowed. "Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397 2 WP-3844-2013
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide work order dated 01.12.2012, pursuant to the NIT proceedings, the petitioner was awarded the works contract for maintenance, security and assembling of Pontoon Bridge, Atarghat, for the year 2012-13. Though the petitioner performed the said work with utmost dispatch, illegally vide order dated 26.02.2013, the works contract of the petitioner was rescinded, and thereafter, vide order dated 02.03.2013 (Annexure-P/2), the registration of the petitioner was suspended and the work in question was sought to be awarded to some other contractor by inviting fresh NIT (AnnexureP/4).
3. Though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition to challenge the orders impugned, however, looking to the objection raised by the respondents in their return as regards the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the termination of works contract, in view of the availability of statutory remedy under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer to the challenge to the order of suspension of registration of petitioner vide order dated 02.03.2013 (Annexure-P/2), and submits that in respect of other reliefs pertaining to the alleged illegal resignment of the contract, he may be permitted to approach the remedy in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1983.
4. In view of the above submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition, insofar as it relates to the challenge to the termination of works contract vide order dated 26.02.2013, is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to prefer a reference petition before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal at Bhopal, in terms of Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, with an observation that if such a reference petition is filed by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, the petitioner shall be entitled for benefit of Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397 3 WP-3844-2013 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period spent by the petitioner before this Court.
5. With the aforesaid, the challenge to the order dated 26.02.2013 is permitted to be withdrawn.
6. Insofar as the challenge to the order of suspension of registration dated 02.03.2013 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the garb of a purported suspension, the petitioner has been permanently blacklisted, as no time period for the suspension of the registration of the petitioner has been specified in the impugned order dated 02.03.2013. It is submitted that even till date, the registration of the petitioner remains suspended. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been fairly well settled by the judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that there cannot be an order of permanent debarment/blacklisting. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 02.03.2013 suspending the registration of the petitioner, deserves to be interfered and quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State by referring to the return filed, submits that since the petitioner had failed to perform the work in question within the time specified, difficulties were faced by the general public at large, and therefore, the registration of the petitioner has rightly been suspended. Counsel for the State further submits that as per the return, order of suspension of the petitioner has been referred to the higher authorities, on which the decision is to be taken by them. Therefore, even the challenge made by the petitioner to the order of suspension of registration dated 02.03.2013 does not warrant any interference.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397 4 WP-3844-2013
9. The perusal of the order dated 02.03.2013, whereby the registration of petitioner has been suspended does not indicate that the same preceded any show cause notice or affords any prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, no time period has been specified in the order dated 02.03.2013 for which, the registration of the petitioner has been directed to remain suspended. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kulja Industries Ltd. Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 731, has held as under:
"21. The legal position governing blacklisting of suppliers in USA and UK is no different. In USA instead of using the expression "blacklisting" the term "debarring" is used by the statutes and the courts. The Federal Government considers "suspension and debarment"
as a powerful tool for protecting taxpayer resources and maintaining integrity of the processes for federal acquisitions. Comprehensive guidelines are, therefore, issued by the Government for protecting public interest from those contractors and recipients who are non- responsible, lack business integrity or engage in dishonest or illegal conduct or are otherwise unable to perform satisfactorily. These guidelines prescribe the following among other grounds for debarment:
(a) Conviction of or civil judgment for.--
(1) Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction;
(2) Violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes, including those proscribing price fixing between competitors, allocation of customers between competitors, and bid rigging;
(3) Commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397 5 WP-3844-2013 (4) Commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects your present responsibility;
(b) Violation of the terms of a public agreement or transaction so serious as to affect the integrity of an agency program, such as.--
(1) A wilful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or more public agreements or transactions; (2) A history of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance of one or more public agreements or transactions; or (3) A wilful violation of a statutory or regulatory provision or requirement applicable to a public agreement or transaction;
(c)***
(d) Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects your present responsibility.
22.The guidelines also stipulate the factors that may influence the debarring official's decision which include the following:
(a) The actual or potential harm or impact that results or may result from the wrongdoing.
(b) The frequency of incidents and/or duration of the wrongdoing.
(c) Whether there is a pattern or prior history of wrongdoing.
(d) Whether the contractor has been excluded or disqualified by an agency of the Federal Government or has not been allowed to participate in State or local contracts or assistance agreements on the basis of conduct similar to one or more of the causes for debarment specified in this part.
(e) Whether and to what extent did the contractor plan, initiate or carry out the wrongdoing.
(f) Whether the contractor has accepted responsibility for the wrongdoing and recognized the seriousness of the misconduct.
(g) Whether the contractor has paid or agreed to pay all criminal, civil and administrative liabilities for the improper activity, including any Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397 6 WP-3844-2013 investigative or administrative costs incurred by the Government, and has made or agreed to make full restitution.
(h) Whether the contractor has cooperated fully with the government agencies during the investigation and any court or administrative action.
(i) Whether the wrongdoing was pervasive within the contractor's organization.
(j) The kind of positions held by the individuals involved in the wrongdoing.
(k) Whether the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action or remedial measures, such as establishing ethics training and implementing programs to prevent recurrence.
(l) Whether the contractor fully investigated the circumstances surrounding the cause for debarment and, if so, made the result of the investigation available to the debarring official."
23. As regards the period for which the order of debarment will remain effective, the guidelines state that the same would depend upon the seriousness of the case leading to such debarment.
24. Similarly in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there are statutory provisions that make operators ineligible on several grounds including fraud, fraudulent trading or conspiracy to defraud, bribery, etc.
25. Suffice it to say that "debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the "debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.
26. In the case at hand according to the respondent BSNL, the appellant had fraudulently withdrawn a huge amount of money which was not due to it in collusion and conspiracy with the officials of the respondent Corporation. Even so permanent debarment from future contracts for all Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397 7 WP-3844-2013 times to come may sound too harsh and heavy a punishment to be considered reasonable especially when (a) the appellant is supplying bulk of its manufactured products to the respondent BSNL, and (b) the excess amount received by it has already been paid back.
27. The next question then is whether this Court ought to itself determine the time period for which the appellant should be blacklisted or remit the matter back to the authority to do so having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances.
28. A remand back to the competent authority has appealed to us to be a more appropriate option than an order by which we may ourselves determine the period for which the appellant would remain blacklisted. We say so for two precise reasons:
28.1. Firstly, because blacklisting is in the nature of penalty the quantum whereof is a matter that rests primarily with the authority competent to impose the same. In the realm of service jurisprudence this Court has no doubt cut short the agony of a delinquent employee in exceptional circumstances to prevent delay and further litigation by modifying the quantum of punishment but such considerations do not apply to a company engaged in a lucrative business like supply of optical fibre/HDPE pipes to BSNL.
28.2. Secondly, because while determining the period for which the blacklisting should be effective the respondent Corporation may for the sake of objectivity and transparency formulate broad guidelines to be followed in such cases. Different periods of debarment depending upon the gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. While it may not be possible to exhaustively enumerate all types of offences and acts of misdemeanour, or violations of contractual obligations by a contractor, the respondent Corporation may do so as far as possible to reduce if not totally eliminate arbitrariness in the exercise of the power vested in it and inspire confidence in the fairness of the order which the competent authority may pass against a defaulting contractor."
10.In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27397 8 WP-3844-2013 in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of suspension of registration of the petitioner without specifying any time period for the default alleged is grossly disproportionate and excessively harsh as it amount to permanent debarment/blacklisting. Permanent blacklisting incurs ineligibility from participation in tender proceedings of other government functionaries as well.
Ordinarily, the authority competent to determine the period for which, the registration of the contractor is required to be suspended is employer and the matter is required to be remitted to employer. However, looking to the fact of the instant case, that the period of nearly 12 years have elapsed since passing of the order of suspension of registration of the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner informs that even till date the order is in force, this Court deems it appropriate to interfere and quash the order dated 02.03.2013 (Annexure-P/2). Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
11.With the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Adnan Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 10/31/2025 6:35:35 PM