JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent-Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of blacklisting/ban/debarment from participation in any floated/future tenders of Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd (in short 'JUSNL') for five years, contained in Office Order no. 1642/ JUSNL/Ranchi dated 24th August, 2016 inter alia on both grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and on merits as well. 3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that no notice in the eye of law has ever been issued before passing the order of blacklisting. The specific statements to that effect have been made not only in the prayer portion and the grounds urged at paragraph-2 but also at paragraph-68 of the writ petition. He has also pointed out to the averments in the counter affidavit and especially paragraph-32, which is in reply to the statements made to paragraphs 62-71 of the writ application. It is submitted that evidently there is no denial of specific grounds urged by the petitioner. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also endeavoured to address the Court on the merits of allegation contained in the impugned order under different Heads i.e., “A. POOR PERFORMANCE ; B. FORGERY IN SUBMISSION OF BANK GUARANTEE BY THE FIRM; C. ARBITRATION CASE; D. ACB CASE; E. Facts of work of M/s RPCL for Adityapur town project under APDRP scheme 10th plan of J.S.E.B has been received from C.E (APDRP) signed by EEE (APDRP) & CE (APDRP). In the report, Sl. No. 6,7 & 8 are relevant for SPC's deliberations to blacklist M/s RPCL. F. M/s RPCL should appreciate that JUSNL's projects suffered due to RPCL's poor performance and other activities. M/s RPCL has failed to adhere conditions of erstwhile J.S.E.B contract. It also has ACB case in which its CMD Sri A.K. Singh and M/s RPCL are chargesheeted. 5. It is submitted that had the petitioner got adequate opportunity to show cause against the proposed action in terms of ratio rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , paragraphs 26 to 29 and also in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , paragraphs 26 to 29 and also in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 , paragraphs 16, 17, 22, 23 and 25, petitioner would have been able to defend himself both on merits of charges and proportionality of punishment proposed to be levied. In absence thereof, grave prejudice have been caused to the petitioner, which cannot be upheld in the eye of law. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-JUSNL has endeavoured to address the Court on merits of the charges also. However, he has not been able to deny the specific plea raised by the petitioner of lack of any notice at all in the eye of law on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit. 7. I have considered the submission of the parties and relevant material background facts referred to hereinabove. The requirement of notice has been held to be a mandatory ingredient before any order of blacklisting/debarment is imposed upon an agency/contractor. It has been categorically held in the case of Gorkha Security Services (Supra) as under:- “21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action.” 8. In the case of Kulja Industries Ltd.(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down the parameters to be considered in the matters of imposition of order of blacklisting on the doctrine of proportionality. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action.” 8. In the case of Kulja Industries Ltd.(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down the parameters to be considered in the matters of imposition of order of blacklisting on the doctrine of proportionality. Paragraph 17 of the report is also quoted hereunder:- “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 untrammeled 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. 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.” 9. The background facts of the present case, therefore, leave no iota of doubt that there has been serious infringement of right to fair opportunity to the petitioner before the impugned order of blacklisting has been imposed. Therefore, without getting into the merits of the allegations and reply furnished by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the order of blacklisting deserves to be quashed only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, since the absence of proper notice has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. Impugned order of blacklisting/debarment dated 24.8.2016 (Annexure-1) is accordingly quashed. Impugned order of blacklisting/debarment dated 24.8.2016 (Annexure-1) is accordingly quashed. Respondents, however, are at liberty to take a fresh decision after proper show cause notice to the petitioner containing specific charges with supporting documents and the punishment proposed as well, so that petitioner may have opportunity to respond to it in an adequate manner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.