ORDER : 1. The present case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside office order no. 01/Go dated 24.04.2018 issued under the signature of the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board (respondent no. 2) whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted from providing security services in Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, Ranchi as well as in its subordinate market committees. Further prayer has been made for quashing the tender notice as contained in memo No. 456/Ranchi dated 27.03.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 as well as the consequential action taken in terms with the said tender notice. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the outstanding amount along with arrears in lieu of the services rendered by it for providing security guards/personnel to the respondents in terms with the agreement executed between them. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner-firm was awarded work by the respondent no. 2 for providing security guards in different market committees subordinate to the Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, Ranchi vide office order no. 156 dated 17.08.2004 and the contract was renewed time-to-time. The petitioner was lastly allotted the work of security services for a period of 11 months vide office order no. 61 dated 14.03.2016 which was extended till December, 2017 in view of the decision taken in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) held on 25.07.2017. The Board also took decision to complete the process of appointing a security agency through inviting tender by December, 2017. A copy of the said decision of the Board of Directors was also forwarded to the petitioner vide office order no. 22 as contained in memo no. 118 dated 24.01.2018. The security in-charge of the petitioner-firm working at market committee campus, Pandra, Ranchi was issued show cause notice vide letter No. 485 dated 29.08.2017 seeking clarification regarding an incident of firing and loot occurred in the night of 28.08.2017 by unsocial elements in a shop situated in the market premises, Pandra. The Director of the petitioner-firm, vide letter no. 1761 dated 11.09.2017, informed the Secretary, Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, Ranchi (the respondent no. The Director of the petitioner-firm, vide letter no. 1761 dated 11.09.2017, informed the Secretary, Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) that the security in-charge of the petitioner-firm had already submitted reply on 31.08.2017 to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2017. The petitioner also informed that at the time of incident, nine security guards were on duty within the campus of market committee, Pandra and they immediately reached the place of occurrence. They also reported the matter to the police who reached the spot immediately. The petitioner denied any latches on its part and submitted that the security guards deployed by it were performing their duties sincerely as per the instructions given by the authorities from time-to-time. However, the petitioner was issued another show cause notice by the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 1503 dated 03.10.2017 (signed on 25.09.2017) seeking clarification as to why its services should not be terminated by blacklisting it. The said notice was replied by the managing director of the petitioner on 07.10.2017 stating that the proposed action of terminating the services as well as blacklisting was not proper since the security guards deployed by the petitioner performed their duties sincerely and helped the shopkeepers at the time of occurrence and they also cooperated in the police investigation. However, vide office order no. 01/go. dated 24.04.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner was blacklisted. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 blacklisting the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary in law as the said order has been issued for an indefinite period without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that the local shopkeepers of market committee, Pandra wrote to the respondent- Board informing that the security guards deployed by the petitioner had rendered the services to the shopkeepers satisfactorily and their shops had been protected by them in all situations. It is further submitted that the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner is an extreme action on the part of the respondents which makes it ineligible to work. Blacklisting is a stigma and it should not be done in a routine manner. The petitioner has rendered its services to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents since 2004. It is further submitted that the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner is an extreme action on the part of the respondents which makes it ineligible to work. Blacklisting is a stigma and it should not be done in a routine manner. The petitioner has rendered its services to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents since 2004. It is an admitted fact that the dacoits, who snatched the bag of an outsider containing cash, were armed with weapons and the respondents had hired the services of security guards without weapons. The security guards of the petitioner-firm were present at all the four gates of the market premises and only due to their alertness, the dacoits could not cause much harm. The incident took place with the said outsider who was chased by the dacoits from outside the market premises. The security guards did not have knowledge with regard to carrying of cash in a bag by the said outsider. It is also submitted that the entire exercise of blacklisting the petitioner has been done by the respondent no. 2 with an intention to favour another agency in getting the tender for supply of security guards and at the same time, the respondent no. 2 by issuing the order of blacklisting has prevented the petitioner from participating in the tender process. In spite of repeated requests, the petitioner has not been paid the outstanding dues which the respondents are liable to pay. The respondent no. 2 issued tender notice as contained in memo no. 456 dated 27.03.2018 and knowingly inserted certain eligibility criteria so as to award the work to the security agencies of its choice and to eliminate the petitioner from the tender process. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board (JSAMB), Ranchi had engaged the petitioner in 2004 to provide security guards for certain market committees of JSAMB and the agreement executed for the said purpose was valid for eleven months only. The said agreement was extended from time-to-time and the last agreement was executed with the petitioner-firm on 01.04.2016 for a period of eleven months. It is further submitted that serious complaints were received by the respondent-JSAMB, Ranchi with regard to repeated violation of different terms and conditions of the agreement by the petitioner-firm including clause nos. 6 and 7. The said agreement was extended from time-to-time and the last agreement was executed with the petitioner-firm on 01.04.2016 for a period of eleven months. It is further submitted that serious complaints were received by the respondent-JSAMB, Ranchi with regard to repeated violation of different terms and conditions of the agreement by the petitioner-firm including clause nos. 6 and 7. A number of show cause notices were issued to the petitioner asking it to submit explanation with regard to the irregularities and illegalities committed by it. Though the explanations were submitted by the petitioner, yet the same were not found satisfactory at all by the respondent-JSAMB and, accordingly, the impugned order of blacklisting was passed. It is also submitted that the respondents have issued fresh tender notice as contained in memo no. 979 dated 09.07.2018 for providing security personnel/services from the interested firms. The petitioner did not participate in the said tender and the same was awarded to another firm vide memo no. 1618/Ranchi dated 02.11.2018. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 whereby it has been blacklisted alleging certain irregularities committed by it while executing the allotted work. 7. The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that blacklisting is a stigma and it should not be done in a routine manner as would be evident from the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2. The said order of blacklisting the petitioner has been passed without assigning any reason that too for an indefinite period. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that order of blacklisting has been passed complying the principles of natural justice since the petitioner was served a number of show cause notices which were replied by the petitioner and the same were also duly considered by the respondents before passing the said order. 8. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, it appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.08.2017 alleging security failure by it in the market premises, Pandra. The respondent no. 8. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, it appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.08.2017 alleging security failure by it in the market premises, Pandra. The respondent no. 3 again wrote letter to the petitioner on 03.10.2017 stating that the security in-charge as well as security guards of the petitioner-firm were negligent in duty and further directed it to submit clarification as to why the order of blacklisting should not be passed against it terminating its services. The petitioner replied the said letter on 07.10.2017 denying the allegations levelled against it, however the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 blacklisting the petitioner. 9. Thus, it appears that the petitioner was served specific show cause notice for the proposed action of blacklisting which was duly replied by it and only thereafter the impugned order of blacklisting has been passed specifying the reasons that the petitioner committed certain irregularities during the work period. 10. It is well settled principle of law that the State or its instrumentality is free to decide not to deal with certain persons or class of persons on account of the undesirability of entering into the contractual relationship with such persons by passing an order of blacklisting. There need not be any statutory conferment of such power. The only legal limitation upon the exercise of such power is that the State is to act fairly and rationally and for some legitimate purpose. The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract and as such before passing such order, the principles of natural justice is required to be followed by serving a show-cause notice thereby giving him opportunity to meet the allegations which were in the mind of the authority contemplating blacklisting of such a person. 11. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance as well as keeping in view that before issuance of impugned order dated 24.04.2018, the petitioner was served show cause notice dated 03.10.2017 clearly mentioning that the security guards and security in-charge of the petitioner were negligent in duty, I do not see any procedural impropriety in passing of the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner. I am also of the view that the impugned order has been passed in due compliance of principles of natural justice and thus there is no ground to interfere with the merit of the impugned order of blacklisting under the writ jurisdiction of this court. 12. However, it appears that the petitioner has been blacklisted for an indefinite period which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 731 . Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed to that extent. 13. Since the petitioner has suffered consequence of the order of blacklisting for more than 3½ years, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate to remand the matter to the respondents to determine the period of blacklisting, rather the period of blacklisting already undergone/suffered by the petitioner would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, it is observed that the petitioner henceforth is to be treated out of the blacklist in pursuance of the impugned order as contained in office order no. 01/go. dated 24.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2. 14. The petitioner has also challenged the tender notice dated 27.03.2018 on the ground that the respondents have put certain discriminatory and arbitrary terms and conditions in the said tender notice so as to favour the security agencies of their choice. On the other hand, the respondents have specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the fresh tender has already been finalized with another firm vide memo no. 1618/Ranchi dated 02.11.2018. This court is of the view that since at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was on blacklist and due to said reason it could not participate in the tender, there is no reason to interfere with the tender already finalized with another firm, that too, when the successful tenderer is not a party respondent in the present case. 15. 15. So far the claim for payment of due amount along with arrears in lieu of security services provided by the petitioner to the respondents is concerned, this court finds that the said claim of the petitioner has not specifically been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit and as such the petitioner is given liberty to represent the respondent no. 1 claiming admissible dues towards the work in question. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 1, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing of the said representation. 16. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.