ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner no.1, a Non Governmental Organization registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was allotted work under the Memorandum of Agreement dated 3.3.2008(Annexure-2) entered with the Director, Horticulture Mission, Jharkhand to implement and execute the work of National Horticulture Mission Programme in Hussainabad block of District Palamau. Petitioner was entrusted with the task of plantation of specified plants over an area of 142 acres which was extended to 200 acres for the year 2008-09 against which allotments were also released. The Respondents undertook a decision under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on 20.3.2013 on the basis of inspection report of 3 member team to place 4 agencies including the petitioner in blacklist and lodge F.I.R against it. It was also decided to institute certificate cases against each one of them for having shown zero progress in the matter of survival of plants for both financial year 2007-08 and 2008-09 as per the inspection report dated 1.10.2009 conducted by the Director, Agriculture. Annexure-F is the minutes of the decision dated 20.3.2010, which also refers to the directions of the Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, Government of Jharkhand contained in letter no. 6764 dated 30.12.2009 based upon the inspection conducted by the Director, Agriculture wherein the implementation of different schemes in the District of Palamau, Latehar and Garhwa by these 4 N.G.O.s have shown unsatisfactory progress. Based on its decision dated 20.3.2010, impugned letter dated 7.1.2014 black listing the petitioner has been issued by the Respondent no.3, Director, Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission, Ranchi along with 3 others. 3. Besides addressing the allegation made through the counter affidavit, by way of its rejoinder on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned decision primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice stating that no notice or show cause was issued prior to the issuance of the order of blacklisting. 4. The grounds raised in para 3(iii) and the statements made to that effect at para 60 and 65 have not been categorically refuted by the Respondents in their counter affidavit through statements made at para 34, 36 and such other paragraphs. 4. The grounds raised in para 3(iii) and the statements made to that effect at para 60 and 65 have not been categorically refuted by the Respondents in their counter affidavit through statements made at para 34, 36 and such other paragraphs. There is no notice enclosed to the counter affidavit either showing compliance of the principles of natural justice before passing the order of blacklisting which entails adverse consequences on any such agency and unreasonably seeks to curtain its fundamental right to carry on its business. The impugned decision therefore cannot be upheld in the eye of law. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of Gorkha Security Service Vrs. Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 as also in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order does not even indicate the period of blacklisting. In that way it is wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct on the part of the agency. Para 17, 18, 25, 28, 28.1, 28.2 of the judgment in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra) is being quoted herein below for better appreciation:- “17. That apart, the power to blacklist a contractor whether the contract be for supply of material or equipment or for the execution of any other work whatsoever is in our opinion inherent in the party allotting the contract. There is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor. That is because “blacklisting” simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach. Between two private parties the right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by any constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of private parties. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence is similarly examinable by a writ court. 18. The legal position on the subject is settled by a long line of decisions rendered by this Court starting with Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. where this Court declared that blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains and that the authority passing any such order was required to give a fair hearing before passing an order blacklisting a certain entity. This Court observed: (SCC p. 75, para 20) “20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” Subsequent decisions of this Court in Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.; Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd.; Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD) among others have followed the ratio of that decision and applied the principle of audi alteram partem to the process that may eventually culminate in the blacklisting of a contractor. 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. 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. 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”. 5. Therefore, the impugned order dated 7.1.2014 cannot be sustained in the eye of law being in violation of principles of natural justice. It is accordingly quashed. Learned counsel for the Respondent however submits that quashing of the decision of the blacklisting may however not prejudice the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for realization of outstanding dues as a public demand. 6. It is accordingly quashed. Learned counsel for the Respondent however submits that quashing of the decision of the blacklisting may however not prejudice the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for realization of outstanding dues as a public demand. 6. It goes without saying that the observations made herein above would not affect any other proceedings initiated for realization of any outstanding public demand from the petitioner, in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. However Respondents are at liberty to take a fresh decision after due notice and in accordance with law.