ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted. It has further been prayed to restore the work of the petitioner as Paddy Procurement Agency and to forthwith ensure physical verification of the stocks of paddy lying at various godowns of PACS (Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies), lifting of paddy lying at various godowns of PACS/LAMPS, transportation of the same to the tagged rice mills and delivery of requisite CMR (Custom Milled Rice) to FCI (Food Corporation of India) by the rice mills and acceptance of CMR by the FCI in a time bound manner. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Paddy Procurement Agency in the State of Jharkhand under a scheme issued vide notification bearing no. 4 (4)/2015-Py.I dated 09.06.2016, whereby the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Government of India fixed the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2016-17 for Chhotanagpur Division excluding Ramgarh District and Santhal Pargna Division. The respondent no. 2 –the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2017 stating that the petitioner has made delayed payment to the farmers and thereby asked the petitioner to reply as to why it should not be blacklisted. The said notice was replied by the petitioner on 10.04.2017 explaining the difficulties being faced by it in doing the work. The respondent no. 2 issued second show cause notice on 09.06.2017 as to why the petitioner should not be penalized and blacklisted. The petitioner replied the said notice on 17.06.2017, however, vide resolution dated 19.06.2017, the respondent no. 2 conveyed the petitioner that if it fails to make payment to the farmers, it would be blacklisted. The petitioner replied the letter on 23.06.2017 informing that the payment of farmers of 12 districts to the tune of Rs. 65 crores against the paddy which reached the rice mills, has been made and further requested to send the remaining paddy to the rice mills so that the balance amount can also be settled off by the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 3. However, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had bonafide intention to execute its assignments as it had cleared payment of Rs. 65 crores, however, without analyzing that the delay in making payment to farmers occurred due to delayed delivery of paddy to rice mills which was not attributable to petitioner, the respondent no. 2 issued the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, blacklisting the petitioner on account of non-payment to the farmers. It is further submitted that any decision of the State authority having adverse civil consequences including blacklisting should be taken only after a fair opportunity of personal hearing is given by the authority to the party suffering the consequences. It is also submitted that the impugned order of blacklisting suffers from arbitrariness and premeditated action against the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has exercised the power to blacklist the petitioner for indefinite period which is contrary to the settled position of law. It is further submitted that the impugned order also suffers from lack of specific findings determining the non-performance on the part of the petitioner which only makes reference to the delay in making payments to the farmers. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that Clause 12 and 17 of the agreement clearly provide that the payment of paddy should be made within seven days of quality check by RTGS/NEFT and if the conditions of agreement or the instructions of the government are violated, punitive action has to be taken. Several complaints were received by the respondent authorities that the petitioner did not pay the price of paddy to the farmers. Repeated directions were issued to the petitioner for making payment to the farmers by video conferencing, departmental meetings and issuing letters, however, the same were not complied. The petitioner was issued show cause notice by the respondent no. 2 vide memo no. 2503 dated 09.06.2017 and on finding the reply of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, it was blacklisted vide notification contained in memo no. 2827 dated 29.06.2017. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-FCI submits that the petitioner has wrongly contended that the FCI did not co-operate with the petitioner. 2 vide memo no. 2503 dated 09.06.2017 and on finding the reply of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, it was blacklisted vide notification contained in memo no. 2827 dated 29.06.2017. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-FCI submits that the petitioner has wrongly contended that the FCI did not co-operate with the petitioner. In the areas where the petitioner and other procurement agencies were doing the work of procurement, the quality check was the responsibility of the procuring agencies and the FCI was to accept CMR as per the norms of the Government of India fixed in this regard, thus the respondent-FCI has accepted all the CMR without inspection of paddy. The petitioner in this case was also a procuring agency in some of the areas and it was its responsibility to ensure timely quality check and release of MSP to the farmers from whom paddy was procured. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has been blacklisted by the respondent no. 2 alleging that it has not made payment of paddy to the concerned farmers within seven days of sale, thus it has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement which necessitated the passing of the impugned order. 7. The thrust of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that by various representations, it had informed the respondent authorities that the paddy was not being picked up from the godowns of PACS/LAMPS in time and if at all picked up, the millers failed to deliver the CMR to the FCI within time. Since the paddy was not being lifted from the PACS/LAMPS godown timely, such delay on the part of PACS/LAMPS and rice mills directly affected the petitioner’s payment process as the petitioner was supposed to release payment only when the standard quality of paddy was determined by the FCI. It has further been contended that there was difference between actual quantity of paddy lifted by the rice mills and the quantity reported by PACS/LAMPS, thus making payment for the paddy which had not been delivered, would have been in violation of Section 9 of the Jharkhand Custom Milled Rice (Liability and Control) Order, 2016 dated 01.12.2016. 8. It has further been contended that there was difference between actual quantity of paddy lifted by the rice mills and the quantity reported by PACS/LAMPS, thus making payment for the paddy which had not been delivered, would have been in violation of Section 9 of the Jharkhand Custom Milled Rice (Liability and Control) Order, 2016 dated 01.12.2016. 8. On the contrary, the specific contention made on behalf of the respondent-FCI is that the FCI was not under obligation to do the quality check of the procured paddy, rather the duty was cast upon the petitioner to check the quality and to make the payment to the farmers within the time stipulated in the agreement. 9. So far the challenge to the impugned order dated 29.06.2017 whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for an indefinite period, the same appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered 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 part of which reads 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 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.” 10. In the aforesaid case, it has been specifically held that the debarment can never be permanent. In the present case also, the petitioner has been blacklisted without specifying the period which is contrary to the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment. Otherwise also, Clause 17 of the agreement specifies that if the petitioner makes any violation of terms and conditions of the contract, penal action will be taken against him under the relevant provision. Neither in the show cause nor in the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has mentioned the provision under which the said authority has proceeded against the petitioner to blacklist. Accordingly, the order issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 contained in impugned memo no. 2827 dated 29.06.2017 cannot be sustained in law. 11. Neither in the show cause nor in the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has mentioned the provision under which the said authority has proceeded against the petitioner to blacklist. Accordingly, the order issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 contained in impugned memo no. 2827 dated 29.06.2017 cannot be sustained in law. 11. So far as the other reliefs sought in the present writ petition are concerned, the same are governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the actions of the respondents, it may seek appropriate remedy as provided under law. 12. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the impugned order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed. 13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.