ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.11.2015(Annexure P-9), passed by respondent No.2 Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Bhopal, whereby he has been blacklisted and prohibited from participating in the new tenders to be issued by the respondents and, therefore, he has challenged the same by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that at the instance of the petitioner's competitors, the impugned order has been passed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company registered under the provision of Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was having registration of contractorship with the respondents department under Class 'A' category. The petitioner and respondent No.4 have entered into an agreement bearing No.55/2013-14 for the work of construction of road work of k.m. 1/550 to 23 k.m. on Indore Betul National Highway of 59A. The amount of contract was Rs.18,07,45,692/- with the stipulated period of completion of the work of 14 months, excluding rainy season. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after receiving the work order has deployed all resources, manpower, plant and machinery to complete the work within the stipulated time and after being satisfied with quality, quantity and workmanship of the petitioner, the respondent authorities had made the payment of the executed work. 4. On 10.6.2014, a completion certificate was issued by the respondents. Thereafter, he has to maintain the road for a period of 36 months. The petitioner has executed a performance guarantee as a security for the maintenance of road. As per the clause of agreement, if the petitioner would fail to maintain the road, in that event, the respondents for maintenance of the road would hire another agency and after maintenance of the work the amount consumed in the maintenance will be recovered from the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that the order dated 27.11.2015 wherein the petitioner has been black listed has been passed without issuing show-cause notice and without supplying documents relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, is in violation of natural justice and, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure P-9) be quashed with a direction to the respondents to grant a fresh opportunity of hearing and pass an order in accordance with law. 6. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State has submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due notice to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that blacklisting of the petitioner is in the nature of penalty, quantum whereof is a matter rests primarily with the Competent Authority to impose the same. He has drawn our attention to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of M/s. Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, W. T. Project, BSNL and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 9 , wherein it has been held that the decision of blacklisting is open to judicial review on touchstone of proportionality and natural justice principle. 8. The apex Court also held that the decision of blacklisting a contractor for all times to come is disproportionate. Paragraphs No.24, 25 and 26 of the decision in the case of M/s. Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, W.T. Project, BSNL and others (supra), are relevant, which read, as under: - “24. Suffice it to say that ‘debarment’ is recognized and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including mis-representations, 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. 25. 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 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. 26. 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. 26. 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. 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. 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. 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 mis-demeanour, 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.” 9. In the present case, as per impugned order, admittedly, notice was issued on 28.4.2015 and thereafter, the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of 2 years. As per Circular framed by the State Government, the appeal lies against the order of blacklisting before the Engineer-in-Chief. 10. Considering the aforesaid, we direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the Engineer-in-Chief within a period of three weeks from today. In case, such an appeal is filed, the same shall be decided on merit within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the appeal, after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. 10. Considering the aforesaid, we direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the Engineer-in-Chief within a period of three weeks from today. In case, such an appeal is filed, the same shall be decided on merit within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the appeal, after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. Interim order passed on 8.2.2016 shall continue for a period of six weeks or till the final decision of the appeal, whichever is earlier. 12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.