ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims himself to be a ‘A’ Class Contractor challenging the order dt. 25th September, 2017, whereby he has been debarred from the list of contractors in Public Works Department. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is passed by invoking appendix XVI Section VIII Standard Code VIII.5. Counsel submitted that before debarring/suspension, the Authority Concerned has to give a prior notice and after such opportunity being afforded, the Competent Authority can pass an order for the reasons which have been mentioned in Clause VIII.5 of the “Rules for Enlistment of Contractors”. 3. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in a Criminal case by AEN-Jagdish Prakash Meena and there are cross cases between the parties. Counsel submitted that even if there is FIR registered, the same cannot be a ground to debar him. Counsel submitted that the complaint, which was lodged by the petitioner against-Jagdish Prakash Meena is not only one incident but such person has been found to be involved in other cases and Department itself has placed him under suspension vide order dt. 11th October, 2017. Counsel submitted that lodging of an FIR itself cannot be a ground for debar/suspension from enlistment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-Dr. A.S. Khangarot, AGC submitted that the order dt. 29th July, 2018, passed by the authority is legal order. Counsel submitted that the petitioner, apart from indulging in a criminal case, also did not fulfill the work or performed the work, which was assigned to him for construction of quarters for Police Station, Bandikui. 5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that looking to the performance of the petitioner and his behavior, the respondents have issued the order. 6. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant clause VIII-4 & VIII-5 of the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in Public Works Departments (i.e. PWD, Irrigation, PHED, IGND, CAD etc.) providing for debarring of a contractor in certain circumstances. 6. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant clause VIII-4 & VIII-5 of the Rules for Enlistment of Contractors in Public Works Departments (i.e. PWD, Irrigation, PHED, IGND, CAD etc.) providing for debarring of a contractor in certain circumstances. “VIII.4 BLACK-LISTING After giving show cause Notice of 15 days and recording findings, the Enlisting Authority with the approval of the next higher authority with the approval of the next higher authority may blacklist a contractor due to any of the following reasons:- (i) There are sufficient and strong reasons to believe that the contractor or his employee has been guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud, vitiating fair under process including substitution of or interpolation in tenders, pilfering or unauthorized use or disposal of Govt. materials issued for specific works etc. (ii) The contractor continuously refuses to pay Govt. dues without showing adequate reasons and where the registering authority is satisfied that no reasonable dispute attracting reference to Settlement Committee or Court of Law exists for the Contractor’s action. (iii) Where a contractor or his partner or his representative has been convicted by a Court of Law for offences involving moral turpitude in relation to the business dealing or where security considerations including suspected disloyalty to the State so warrant. (iv) If the contractor or his partner or his employee is found guilty of misbehaviour with any of the official of State Government connected with the execution of work directly or indirectly. (v) If a registered contractor, being non-tenderer for work, submits applications giving his offer after receipt/opening of tenders received after due process. VIII.5 Debarring/Suspension “After giving notice and recording reasons the enlisting authority may debar/ suspend the enlistment of the contractors due to following reasons : (1) If a contractor does not execute agreement in deposits performance guarantee or does not start the work or complete the work after sanction of the tender, the contractor is liable to be debarred or suspended from participating in re-tendering of that work or in future tenders and his enlistment may be suspended. (2) If an enlisted contractor, after having tendered for a work or after negotiations gives unauthorized applications voluntarily vitiating the fair tendering process, be is liable to be debarred in participating in participating in that tender or in future tenders and his enlistment may be suspended. (2) If an enlisted contractor, after having tendered for a work or after negotiations gives unauthorized applications voluntarily vitiating the fair tendering process, be is liable to be debarred in participating in participating in that tender or in future tenders and his enlistment may be suspended. (3) If a registered contractor being non-tendered for a work vitiated fair tendering process by submitting application giving his offer after receipt/ opening of tenders received after due process his enlistment it liable to be suspended/ he is liable to be debarred. (4) In case of a Co-operative Society/Society, does not get audit his accounts in time.” 7. This Court finds that lodging of an FIR is not a ground of debarring/suspension, on which order of debarring can be passed by the authorities. The rule making authority has clearly demarcated the areas where debarring/suspension order can be passed and further in a given case, even the order of blacklisting can be passed. 8. The bare reading of clause VIII.4 goes to show that it relates to black listing and if a contractor or his partner or his employee is found guilty of misbehavior with any of the officials of the State Government connected with the execution of work directly or indirectly, action of blacklisting can be taken after giving notice. 9. This Court in the instant case finds that no order of black listing has been passed and on the contrary department has decided to proceed to debar the petitioner and the same action does not seem to be a legal action. This Court finds that the lodging of an FIR by the petitioner and further a cross FIR filed against the petitioner, cannot be a subject matter, on merits, for debarring the petitioner as ‘A’ Class Contractor. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 823/2014 (M/s. Nayak Construction Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 6th May, 2016. Counsel submitted that even in the case of black listing, the Division Bench has observed that the black listing amounts to civil death and such orders are to be passed with greater caution after giving proper opportunity to defend the delinquent. 11. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 6th May, 2016. Counsel submitted that even in the case of black listing, the Division Bench has observed that the black listing amounts to civil death and such orders are to be passed with greater caution after giving proper opportunity to defend the delinquent. 11. This Court finds that the present case is not of black listing, however, the legal position emerges that the order of debarring has to be passed, as per the Rules, which have been framed. 12. This Court, accordingly allows the present writ petition and set aside the orders dt. 25th September, 2017. This Court also observes that the respondents are always free to take action, as per the law and in case any delinquency is found to be committed by the petitioner firm, the respondents are free to proceed after following, the due process of law.