Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ekta Parivahan Sahkari Samiti ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22311
1 WP-6805-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6805 of 2026
M/S EKTA PARIVAHAN SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT
TIKAMGARH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Kumar Shrivastav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey - Advocate for respondent No.2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 6803 of 2026
M/S EKTA PARIVAHAN SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT
TIKAMGARH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Kumar Shrivastav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey - Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.
ORDER
Since the controversy involved in W.P. No.6805/2026 and W.P. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 16:52:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22311 2 WP-6805-2026 No.6803/2026 is identical, therefore both the petitions are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No.6805/2026 are taken into consideration.
2. The petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (communicated on 23.01.2026) (Annexure P/8).
(ii) That, by issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to refund the forfeited Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)of the Petitioner.
(iii) Any other writ/direction which is deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
3 . It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a registered cooperative Society registered under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent No.2 issued an E-Tender notice bearing No.897 dated 03.09.2025, GEM ID No.GEM/2025/B/6650095 for SOR-based HLRT food transportation for the year 2025-2027. Petitioner has authorised Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, the then Manager of the Petitioner Society to submit the tender. Due to negligence and improper study of the tender conditions by the then Manager of Society Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, who has been appointed to fill the details of tender rates, has quoted low rates without consulting the Board of Directors. Immediately upon knowledge of the discrepancy/low rates quoted in tender document, petitioner issued a show-cause notice to the Manager and sought explanation, which was not found satisfactory and, therefore, he was suspended with immediate effect. Petitioner participated in the tender process and looking to the lower rates, petitioner was apprehended that the rates were likely to be approved by the respondents and they may ask the petitioner to execute agreement and, therefore, petitioner has submitted a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 16:52:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22311 3 WP-6805-2026 detailed representation dated 10.10.2025 explaining the circumstances and requesting cancellation and re-tender as permissible under clause 26.16. Petitioner participated in the tender process and emerged as L-01 bidder. The rates were approved by the head office vide order dated 09.01.2026. Petitioner was directed to execute the agreement vide communication dated 09.01.2026. In response to letter dated 09.01.2026, Petitioner Society vide its letter dated 13.01.2026 expressed its unwillingness to execute the agreement on account of inability to match 100% of the quoted rates as required by the respondents and with the reasons earlier stated in representation dated 10.10.2025 and further, petitioner vide letter dated 13.01.2026 informed the respondents about genuine constraints and requested reconsideration and fresh tender process. No agreement was executed. In response to letter dated 13.01.2026, respondent No.3 without issuing any show-cause notice and without granting opportunity of hearing passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 which was communicated to the petitioner on 23.01.2026, whereby Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of the petitioner has been forfeited and the petitioner has been debarred from participating in tenders of the Corporation for 2 forthcoming tender years. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4 . It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Impugned order entails civil consequences including blacklisting/debarment. It is further argued that no show cause notice proposing blacklisting was issued and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 16:52:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22311 4 WP-6805-2026 submitted that the order passed by the respondents authority is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 which was recently being followed by the Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation Of India reported in 2021 (2) SCC 551. He has further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Kamtheen Security Services, Indore Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2018 (2) MPLJ 106, wherein following the judgment in the case o f Gorkha Security Services (supra), the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in that case and subsequent action of blacklisting was quashed.
5. Respondents have marked their appearance before this Court and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. It is contended by the respondents that issuance of show cause notice will be an useless formality to the petitioner as it is an admitted position that petitioner has categorically refused to execute the agreement. Therefore, the entire action has been taken against the petitioner Society and they have been blacklisted after considering clause 19.1 and 19.2 of the NIT. Petitioner has given a detailed reply and no explanation is tendered by the petitioner which can further change the decision of the Authorities, therefore extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would not make any difference. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 in support of his arguments. It is stated that once the admitted and undisputed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 16:52:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22311 5 WP-6805-2026 facts lead to only one conclusion, then the issuance of a show-cause notice will amount to useless formality. He has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7 . It is well settled principle of law that without issuance of show cause notice and without showing the proposed action to be taken against the petitioner, the order of blacklisting could not have been passed.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services (supra) has held that it is mandatory that form and content of the show cause notice should necessarily contain that action of blacklisting is proposed against the employee. It has further been held as under :-
"27. In the instant case, no doubt show cause notice dated 6.2.2013 was served upon the appellant. Relevant portion thereof has already been extracted above. This show cause notice is conspicuously silent about the blacklisting action. On the contrary, after stating in detail the nature of alleged defaults and breaches of the agreement committed by the appellant the notice specifically mentions that because of the said defaults the appellant was as such liable to be levied the cost accordingly. It further says why the action as mentioned above may not be taken against the firm, besides other action as deemed fit by the competent authority. It follows from the above that main action which the respondents wanted to take was to levy the cost. No doubt, notice further mentions that competent authority could take other actions as deemed fit. However, that may not fulfill the requirement of putting the defaulter to the notice that action of blacklisting was also in the mind of the competent authority. Mere existence of Clause 27 in the agreement entered into between the parties, would not suffice the aforesaid mandatory requirement by vaguely mentioning other actions as deemed fit.
28. As already pointed out above in so far as penalty of black listing and forfeiture of earnest money/ security deposit is concerned it can be imposed only, if so warranted. Therefore, without any specific stipulation in this behalf, respondent could not have imposed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 16:52:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22311 6 WP-6805-2026 penalty of blacklisting.
29. No doubt, rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be lifted to the position of fundamental rights. However, their aim is to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is now well established proposition of law that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any rules of natural justice, in exercise of power pre-judicially affecting another must be in conformity with the rules of natural justice."
9 . The aforesaid judgment was recently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :-
"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 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."
10. The theory of useless formality will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because petitioner is required to be shown the proposed action which is to be taken against him including the action for blacklisting as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid cases. Admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.
11 . Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22/01/2026 in both the petitions is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed. Liberty is extended to the respondents/ Authorities to pass a fresh order in case if required.
12. With aforesaid observations, both the petitions are finally disposed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 16:52:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22311 7 WP-6805-2026 of. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-03-2026 16:52:08