JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing the order bearing No.6692(S) dated 23.09.2015 issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Registration Officer, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand-Respondent No.2, whereby and whereunder, the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected, as the petitioner has failed to produce reasonable ground in its defence and subsequently, the petitioner has been blacklisted after cancelling its Contract Registration Code No.00221141008 in terms of Rules 10.1.11, 10.1.12 and 10.1.13 of Jharkhand Road Construction Registration Rules, 2008.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a show-cause notice dated 03.09.2015 was issued to the petitioner wherein allegation was levelled against the petitioner that the figure mentioned in letter no.854 dated 02.09.2011 issued by Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Koderma and letter no.98 dated 05.02.2013 issued by Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Koderma were manipulated and by this letter a show-cause was issued to the petitioner as to why the Contractor Code allotted to the petitioner be not cancelled and as to why the petitioner be not blacklisted. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the show-cause notice the period for which punishment of blacklisting is proposed has not been mentioned and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2014) 14 SCC 731 , there cannot be any order of permanent blacklisting. 6. It is further submitted that, however, pursuant to this show-cause, a reply dated 11.09.2015 was filed by the petitioner explaining that the figures mentioned in the aforesaid two letters arose out of typing mistake and that there has been no manipulation or forgery committed by the petitioner so far as these two letters are concerned. 7. Thereafter, a letter dated 11.09.2015 was issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Ranchi to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Koderma asking him to appear before the authority on 14.09.2015 for the purposes of hearing alongwith documentary evidence and the copy of the said letter was marked to the petitioner. 7. Thereafter, a letter dated 11.09.2015 was issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Ranchi to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Koderma asking him to appear before the authority on 14.09.2015 for the purposes of hearing alongwith documentary evidence and the copy of the said letter was marked to the petitioner. On 14.09.2015 the petitioner duly appeared and asked the authority to hand over the copy of the documents on the basis of which the allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner mentioned that upon receipt of such documents further reply will be filed by it. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the letter dated 14.09.2015 which was filed before respondent-Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, no further documents was handed over to the petitioner and the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 was passed by mentioning that the petitioner could not give any explanation or evidence in connection with his defence. 9. While assailing the impugned order dated 23.09.2015, counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letter is not sustainable on three grounds. Firstly, the show-cause reply has not been properly considered by the said authority. Secondly, the documents which was asked for by the petitioner has not been handed over to the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed. Thirdly, by the said order dated 23.09.2015, the petitioner has been blacklisted and it amounts to permanent blacklisting which is not permissible in law. 10. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that although there was a typographical error in the letters issued by the concerned authority but still it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that the figures mentioned in those letters are not correct and accordingly, the petitioner should not have submitted those letters before the authorities. 11. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that the impugned order has rightly been passed after considering the show-cause reply by the petitioner. 12. However, counsel of the respondents has no answer to non-issuance of the documents demanded by the petitioner vide letter dated 14.09.2015 and no submission has been made that any document was ever handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the petitioner’s letter dated 14.09.2015. 13. 12. However, counsel of the respondents has no answer to non-issuance of the documents demanded by the petitioner vide letter dated 14.09.2015 and no submission has been made that any document was ever handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the petitioner’s letter dated 14.09.2015. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 on account of the following facts and reasons: a. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the show-cause reply which has been filed by the petitioner has not been properly considered by the authority and the impugned order is apparently a non- speaking order on the points raised by the petitioner in the show-cause reply. b. The petitioner had asked for the documents vide letter dated 14.09.2015 but the impugned order has been passed without giving the documents to the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned order suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice. c. By the impugned order it appears that the petitioner has been permanently blacklisted and this order is in conflict with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 whose paragraph no.25 reads as follows: “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.” 14. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand for passing a fresh order after handing over the documents which have been demanded by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner on the quantum of debarment. The petitioner is directed to appear before the said authority on 15.05.2018 and the said authority is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter.