ORDER : The present writ petition has been preferred against the order of the Jail Purchase Committee as contained in memo no. 921 dated 20.04.2017 to the extent it declares the petitioner ineligible and also debars it from participating in all future bids. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it had participated in e-tender dated 08.12.2016 floated by Jail Purchase Committee for the financial quarter 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 and it was made eligible for supply of Arhar Dal. In the meantime, the petitioner represented the I.G, Prisons, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 07.01.2017 with respect to the anomalies in the bidding process held on 06.01.2017 as according to the petitioner, even after e-tender, postal bidding was entertained which was contrary to the guidelines and circulars of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Thereafter, the petitioner also made representations on 20.01.2017, 22.01.2017 and 25.01.2017 to the Superintendent, Birsa Munda, Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi regarding the attitude of the jail officials in not taking the supply of Arhar Dal, however, nothing was done. Suddenly, the petitioner was served with the show-cause notice on 14.02.2017 alleging that the queries made by the petitioner is just to make an excuse for not fulfilling the supply order. The petitioner was also asked to show-cause as to why it should not be debarred from participating in all future tender processes. The petitioner replied the show-cause on 19.02.2017 stating that in spite of bona-fide conduct of the petitioner, the supply of the food articles has not been received by the respondent authorities. However, the petitioner was served upon the order as contained in memo no. 921 dated 20.04.2017, whereby the Jail Purchase Committee on the basis of the direction given by the I.G, Prisons and Jail Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi vide memo no. 1888/Jail dated 19.04.2017 and 3415/Jail dated 19.04.2017 respectively, treated the petitioner ineligible in the tender for the quarter 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 and for all future tenders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while passing the said order. It is further submitted that the order of blacklisting for an indefinite period is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the order of blacklisting for an indefinite period is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that earlier also, the respondents had floated tender for supply of food items in Birsa Munda Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi for a period of 3 months i.e., from 01.10.2016 to 31.12.2016, however, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the tender which further shows arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. 4. The learned counsel the respondent- State of Jharkhand submits that earlier e-bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected as certain discrepancies were found in the name of the petitioner’s sales tax certificate, income tax certificate and character certificate. It is further submitted that so far as the present tender is concerned, the petitioner was asked by way of several notices to make signature in the sample so that the food articles could be supplied as per tender. However, it refused to do so, rather it tried to impose its own terms and conditions by making false allegations. Thus, in terms with Rule 1051(vi) of the Jail Manual, the authorities did not find the petitioner fit to supply the food articles and the impugned order has been passed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the respondents has heavily relied on Rule 1051(vi) of the Jail Manual (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-A series to the counter-affidavit) and tried to justify the issuance of impugned letter by submitting that several notices were given to the petitioner to sign on the sample which it failed to do, thus the impugned order has been passed. On perusal of Rule 1051 (vi) of the Jail Manual, it would appear that the same provides that if it is decided to procure supplies by auction, the sample selected by the Committee is to be put to auction and the lowest bid is to be accepted. The Committee has the discretion to exclude from the auction the persons whom it considers undesirable, e.g., a contractor who has performed a previous contract badly. The said provision even empowers the Committee to exclude the person who participates in a particular auction if his previous contract has not been up to the mark. The Committee has the discretion to exclude from the auction the persons whom it considers undesirable, e.g., a contractor who has performed a previous contract badly. The said provision even empowers the Committee to exclude the person who participates in a particular auction if his previous contract has not been up to the mark. It thus means that the said exclusion would be considered on auction to auction basis. Thus, no interference is warranted so far as the decision of the Jail Purchase Committee declaring the petitioner ineligible in the tender in question. 6. However, so far as the decision of the Jail Purchase Committee to debar the petitioner from participating in future auctions/tenders for indefinite period is concerned, the same appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief Gen. Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.” reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 , the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: “25. 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 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.” 7. In the aforesaid case, it has been specifically held that the debarment can never be permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. In the present case also, the petitioner has been permanently debarred from participating the future tender. 8. Accordingly, the decision of the Committee contained in impugned memo no. 921 dated 20.04.2017 to the extent of debarment of the petitioner for indefinite period is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to take a fresh decision with regard to the debarment of the petitioner from participating in future tenders in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Kulja Industries Limited” (supra) as discussed hereinabove. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to take a fresh decision with regard to the debarment of the petitioner from participating in future tenders in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Kulja Industries Limited” (supra) as discussed hereinabove. The said decision shall be taken within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.