JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was under the memorandum of understanding executed on 3.3.2008 with Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1) to implement the National Horticulture Mission Programme conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane, Government of Jharkhand. During the course of execution of programme petitioner volunteered to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,78-,000/- on 20.3.2012 in relation to certain balance un-utilized advances and also communicated through his letter dated 20.3.2012. However he was asked to explain within 24 hours as to why he be not blacklisted and disciplinary action be not taken against him by the State Mission Director, Jharkhand State Horticulture Mission vide notice dated 2.9.2016 (Annexure-6). It alleged that petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,78,000/- by cheque dated 20.3.2012, remaining amount of advance relating to financial year 2007-08. However, as per the special audit conducted by the Government of India, objections relating to blockage and retention of fund by the NGO for 5 years have not been explained. Petitioner was asked to explain as to why the amount was not expended in the period of 5 years and why was it returned. The Agriculturist could not avail of the benefits. Petitioner submitted representation on 2.9.2016. However, petitioner contends that impugned order dated 21.9.2016 (Annexure-9) has been passed by the State Mission Director blacklisting the petitioner without waiting for the petitioner's reply, Annexure-8 submitted on 5.10.2016. 3. Petitioner has assailed the order of blacklisting both on merits as well as on the ground that it is for an indefinite period of time. Such an order of blacklisting for an indefinite period are in teeth of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 (Para 21 and 22 thereof) and in the case of Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 731 (Para 17 thereof). 4. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. According to them advances released in the financial year 2007-08 for implementation of National Horticulture Mission Programme remained un-utilized by the petitioner, which should have been refunded in the next financial year. Petitioner refunded after 5 years on 20.3.2012. 4. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. According to them advances released in the financial year 2007-08 for implementation of National Horticulture Mission Programme remained un-utilized by the petitioner, which should have been refunded in the next financial year. Petitioner refunded after 5 years on 20.3.2012. Special audit conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India also reviewed the grant with reference to the expenditure incurred and examined the books of accounts. Finding no. 10 of the report points out that there were blockage and retention of an amount of Rs. 2,78,600/- for a long time for 2007-08 without any reason by the petitioner NGO. Audit objection still existed only because of petitioner's conduct. It creates a bad impression of the State and the same may have negative impact in funding in the future. Therefore proper show cause notice issued was on 21.9.2016 and on consideration of the petitioner's reply, respondent, State Mission Director finding the charges un-condonable passed the order of blacklisting dated 21.9.2016. The order of blacklisting is in consonance with the principles of natural justice as well. 5. Considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant material facts pleaded. In exercise of powers of judicial review, specifically in the matters relating to challenge to the order of blacklisting, the impugned action has to be tested on the ground whether they conform to the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of proportionality or not. The principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters relating interference in the order of blacklisting have been laid down from the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemical Ltd. vs. State of W.B. (1975) 1 SCC 70 and reiterated as recent as in the case of Gorkha Securities(supra) and Kulja Industries (supra). A show cause notice should precede the order of blacklisting and should satisfy the two requirement:- (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action. (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. 6. The show cause notice, Annexure-6 on the face of it, apart from containing the charges, fails to indicate particular penalty or action proposed to be taken if petitioner did not satisfactorily meet the grounds to which action was proposed. The impugned order of blacklisting also is silent on the quantum of punishment. 6. The show cause notice, Annexure-6 on the face of it, apart from containing the charges, fails to indicate particular penalty or action proposed to be taken if petitioner did not satisfactorily meet the grounds to which action was proposed. The impugned order of blacklisting also is silent on the quantum of punishment. It can be easily inferred that it is for an indefinite period of time. An order of blacklisting entails adverse civil consequences. Such action therefore is to be tested not only on the touchstone of principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kulja Industries (supra), para 17 of which is quoted herein under:- "Para 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 un-trammelled by any constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract or not 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." 7. On consideration of these facts therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order imposing punishment of blacklisting upon the petitioner for indefinite length of time suffers on the ground of proportionality. It operates in a rather harsh manner. On consideration of these facts therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order imposing punishment of blacklisting upon the petitioner for indefinite length of time suffers on the ground of proportionality. It operates in a rather harsh manner. Petitioner would be prevented from undertaking any business activities in exercise of its fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India with any State, Instrumentality or agency for indefinite period of time in view of the order of blacklisting. It therefore cannot be upheld in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-9 dated 21.4.2016 is quashed. However liberty is reserved with the Respondents to take a fresh decision in the matter after issuance of proper show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the quantum of punishment proposed to be taken. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated herein above.