ORDER : 1. Initially the present writ petition was preferred for the following reliefs:- (a) For quashing the letter as contained in memo no. 789(MD) dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) issued by the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) informing all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Jharkhand regarding blacklisting of the petitioner by State Headquarters of National Health Mission, Jharkhand. (b) For issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent authority not to circulate/share the letter dated 15.03.2021 with the Union Government/State Governments and other Governmental entities/departments under its aegis. 2. However, in course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the extent of quashing the impugned letter as contained in memo no. 789(MD) dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) issued by the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Jharkhand Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) informing all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Jharkhand regarding blacklisting of the petitioner by State Headquarters of National Health Mission, Jharkhand. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that in the year 2013, the Government of India launched “National Health Mission” (NHM) subsuming the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and National Urban Health Mission (NUHM) and in order to achieve its objective, the National Health Systems Resource Centre (NHSRC), New Delhi floated Expression of Interest (EoI) dated 09.08.2018 on behalf of NHM and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India for empanelling qualified and experienced “HR Recruitment Agencies” to provide assistance to National, State & Union Territories Health Missions/NHSRC in selecting contractual personnel under the NHM. Clause 18.2 of the said EOI provides that NHSRC, New Delhi may reject the EoI, blacklist the HR Recruitment Agency for a period of 3 years if it is found engaged in any untoward practice which compromises the interests of the MoHFW or National/State/UT Health Mission or NHSRC or/and is against the laws of the land or/and is corrupt, fraudulent, collusive and coercive. The petitioner submitted its bid and was declared a successful bidder and accordingly got empanelled with NHSRC along with other five recruitment agencies initially for a period of two years with effect from 14.11.2018 till 13.11.2020. Thereafter, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society (JRHMS), Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand invited “Request for Financial Bid” (RFB) vide Tender no. Thereafter, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society (JRHMS), Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand invited “Request for Financial Bid” (RFB) vide Tender no. SRCH/Nam/164/2019 dated 21.06.2019 and requested the said six recruitment agencies empanelled with NHSRC to submit financial bids to provide recruitment services for JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi as per the direction of In-charge, Procurement Cell on behalf of the Mission Director, RHMS, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi and in terms with D.O. No. NHSRC/14/15/HRH/17/PF-2 dated 09.01.2015. The petitioner was also amongst six agencies approved by MoHFW, Government of India. Clause 16.3 of the said RFB provides that JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi may reject the bid, and/or forfeit the Performance Security Deposit, as the case may be, and may take any other action including blacklisting the bidder or HR Recruitment Agency for a period of 2 years if the bidder or HR recruitment agency is found engaged in any corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices as mentioned in Clause 16.2 of the said RFB. As the petitioner was empanelled with NHSRC, it submitted its bid on 12.07.2019 and was declared a successful bidder. Accordingly, a draft Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 17.07.2019 was issued by the Administrative Officer, National Health Mission, Jharkhand mentioning that the bid of the petitioner was accepted and a contract would be executed between the petitioner and JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi. It was also mentioned in the said LoI that the total value of the contract would be Rs. 36,86,380.00. The contract was finally signed between the petitioner and the JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi on 29.07.2019 wherein the petitioner was assigned the task of recruiting personnel on behalf of JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi. The term of the contract was for a period of one year which could be extended by the mutual consent of the parties. Further, Clause 9.3 of the contract provides that JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi can terminate the contract, forfeit the performance security and take any other action as deemed fit including blacklisting the petitioner for a period of 2 years as per the terms of the contract if it is found engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive and coercive practices. According to the petitioner, it successfully and diligently executed the contract and was awaiting for release of its partial payment, however vide letter dated 21.07.2020, the Principal Administrative Officer, NHSRC made certain allegations against the services provided by it. According to the petitioner, it successfully and diligently executed the contract and was awaiting for release of its partial payment, however vide letter dated 21.07.2020, the Principal Administrative Officer, NHSRC made certain allegations against the services provided by it. The allegations were based on the letter dated 14.07.2020 issued by the JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi to the Additional Secretary and Mission Director, National Health Mission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The letter dated 21.07.2020 highlighted several issues suggesting that the services provided by the petitioner were unsatisfactory and the petitioner was directed to submit pointwise reply. Accordingly, the petitioner, vide its letter dated 31.07.2020, submitted pointwise reply to the letter dated 21.07.2020 informing the Principal Administrative Officer, NHSRC, New Delhi that there were certain deviations from norms of recruitment process on the part of JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi and the same were not attributable to the petitioner as JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi made certain changes/modifications at the time of recruitment. Being satisfied with the petitioner's reply, the NHSRC, New Delhi extended the petitioner’s empanelment for further six months i.e. w.e.f. 14.11.2020 to 13.05.2021. However, the Mission Director, NHM, Jharkhand, Ranchi without informing the petitioner or serving any show cause notice, issued the impugned letter dated 15.03.2021 informing all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Jharkhand that the petitioner had been blacklisted by State Headquarters of NHM, Jharkhand, Ranchi that too without assigning any reason. The petitioner came to know about the same after receiving the letter dated 26.03.2021 issued by the Deputy Director, National Statistical Office (Field Operations Division), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation by which the petitioner was asked to explain as to why it should not be immediately disqualified from further participation in bid dated 04.02.2021 invited by the said Division of National Statistical Office on the ground of having come to know about issuance of the impugned letter of its blacklisting. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 has issued the impugned letter blacklisting the petitioner without any prior show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. The impugned letter of blacklisting has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 has issued the impugned letter blacklisting the petitioner without any prior show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. The impugned letter of blacklisting has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and is violative of the due procedure established by law as no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned letter dated 15.03.2021. The respondents have failed to consider that the impugned letter dated 15.03.2021 is stigmatic in nature which debars the petitioner from participating in government tenders precluding it from the award of government contracts. It is also submitted that though no such power is vested with the respondent no. 3 under the terms and conditions of the RFP/Contract, the petitioner has been blacklisted for an indefinite period. The said respondent has also failed to appreciate that issuance of the impugned letter will have outsized impact on the petitioner’s right to participate in other governmental tenders inasmuch as it has received a letter dated 26.03.2021 from National Statistical Office (Field Operations Division), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi calling upon an explanation as to why it should not be disqualified from further participation in its tender on the ground of having come to knowledge about issuance of the impugned letter of blacklisting. The said action of the respondent no. 3 has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner committed following errors in the recruitment process of the financial year 2019-20 under the National Health Mission, Jharkhand: (i) JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi provided the draft advertisement to the petitioner. The same advertisement was published in the newspaper, without making it attractive and more visible as expected; (ii) The application, which was designed by the petitioner, had many loopholes. Despite constant reminders to change the form and capture the applicant data as per post, the petitioner did not modify the form; (iii) The whole process was not managed properly. The same advertisement was published in the newspaper, without making it attractive and more visible as expected; (ii) The application, which was designed by the petitioner, had many loopholes. Despite constant reminders to change the form and capture the applicant data as per post, the petitioner did not modify the form; (iii) The whole process was not managed properly. Same candidate who had applied for different posts, necessary information such as matriculation marks, intermediate marks were captured differently for different posts in database profile of the same candidate. There was no supervision and scrutinization of data by the petitioner; (iv) The process of scrutiny of applications was very poor. There were number of computations/tabulation mistakes in the data provided by the petitioner. It had put qualified candidates in non-qualified list and vice versa. JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi had constituted a team to verify all the data and then the list of qualified and non-qualified candidate was prepared for the publication. The petitioner had failed to provide correct list to JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi; (v) The whole process of evaluation of answer sheet and preparation of merit list was pathetic. Though clear instruction was provided by JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi for the said process, yet the petitioner did not follow the same. It had sent a merit list which contained lots of errors and it took long time to rectify. JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi had to be involved in preparing the merit list. 6. Learned A.C. to A.G. further submits that considering the negligent approach of the petitioner in the recruitment process, the JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi informed the Additional Secretary and Mission Director, National Health Mission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi vide letter no.217 (HSN) dated 14.7.2020 that the petitioner would not be invited for submitting its financial bid in the subsequent tender process of National Health Mission, Jharkhand. The said authority was also requested to look into the matter and to communicate the experience and feedback of NHM, Jharkhand to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the tender for recruitment process was floated by the respondent no. 3 inviting bids from empanelled agencies of NHSRC, New Delhi as approved by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. It is also submitted that the tender for recruitment process was floated by the respondent no. 3 inviting bids from empanelled agencies of NHSRC, New Delhi as approved by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. However, due to unsatisfactory services/work of the petitioner and another agency namely M/s SPC Management Services Pvt. Limited, the JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi informed the NHSRC, New Delhi for not including them in further tender process. In anticipation of the decision by NHSRC, New Delhi, necessary information has been given vide impugned letter no.789 (MD) dated 15.3.2021 to the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts with respect to blacklisting the petitioner and one M/s SPC Management Services Pvt. Limited. The said letter is related to the appointment on the vacant posts at district level on contractual basis under National Health Mission, Jharkhand which is an internal communication with the authorities. It is clearly mentioned in Clause 11.5.2 of the contract agreement that in the event of termination on unsatisfactory service or in violation of any of the terms and conditions, the deposited performance security shall stand forfeited without prejudice to any other action in addition. Moreover, the JRHMS, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi may take any other action as deem fit including decision of banning the petitioner for a period of 2 years from participating it in any RFB/RFP published by the Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society and in exercise of such power, the JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi has prohibited the petitioner from participating in the bid floated for recruitment services in 2020-2021 and the same has been communicated to the Ministry of H&FW, Government of India vide letter no. 217 (HSN) dated 14.07.2020. In anticipation of the decision by the NHSRC, New Delhi, necessary information has been sent to the District Health Society vide impugned letter no. 789 (MD) dated 15.3.2021. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayer for quashing the impugned letter dated 15.03.2021 to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has also raised the question of violation of the principles of natural justice while issuing the impugned letter of blacklisting the petitioner which carries adverse civil consequences. 9. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. 8. The petitioner has also raised the question of violation of the principles of natural justice while issuing the impugned letter of blacklisting the petitioner which carries adverse civil consequences. 9. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Nigam reported in (2013) 3 SCC 372 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “14. Total non-application of mind and the order being supported by no reason whatsoever would render the order passed as “arbitrary”. Arbitrariness shall vitiate the administrative order. The rules provide a procedure and even require the State Government to consider the case for renewal of the Government Counsel whose term is coming to an end. The scheme of Para 7.06 of the Manual is that appointment of a Government Pleader is to be made for a period of one year and at the end of the period, the District Officer in consultation with the District Judge is required to submit a report on the work and conduct to the Legal Remembrancer together with the work done in Form 9. It is only when his work or conduct is found to be unsatisfactory that it is so reported to the Government for appropriate orders. If the report is satisfactory, the rule requires that he may be furnished with a deed of engagement in Form 1, for a term not exceeding three years, on his first engagement. 18. The order dated 3-4-2008 is even liable to be quashed on another ground, that it is a non-speaking order also suffering from the vice of non-application of mind. As already discussed, the Government has taken an en bloc decision, The arbitrary act of the State cannot be excluded from the ambit of judicial review merely on the ground that it is a contractual matter. The expression “at any time without assigning any cause”, can be divided into two portions, one “at any time”, which merely means the termination may be made even during the subsistence of the term of appointment and second, “without assigning any cause” which means without communicating any cause to the appointee whose appointment is terminated. However, “without assigning any cause” is not to be equated with “without existence of any cause”. without recording any reason, not to renew the term of any of the Government Counsel. That itself shows that there is no application of mind. However, “without assigning any cause” is not to be equated with “without existence of any cause”. without recording any reason, not to renew the term of any of the Government Counsel. That itself shows that there is no application of mind. In Shrilekha [ (1991) 1 SCC 212 ], this Court expressed the opinion that it would be alien to the constitutional scheme to accept the argument of exclusion of Article 14 in contractual matters.” 10. In the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “Necessity of serving show-cause notice as a requisite of the principles of natural justice. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts. Contents of the show-cause notice 21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. 22. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. 22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of showcause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz: (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India& Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 , has held as under:- “14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the State or a State Corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularised and unambiguous show-cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatisation that accrues to the person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts. This privilege arises because it is the State who is the counterparty in government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts. This privilege arises because it is the State who is the counterparty in government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting take away this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person's reputation and brings the person's character into question. Blacklisting also has long-lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the blacklisted person. 19. In light of the above decisions, it is clear that a prior showcause notice granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative decision-making and particularly so in decisions pertaining to blacklisting which entail grave consequences for the entity being blacklisted. In these cases, furnishing of a valid show-cause notice is critical and a failure to do so would be fatal to any order of blacklisting pursuant thereto.” 12. In the aforesaid cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that blacklisting involves civil consequences. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. The freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of private parties, but any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any its instrumentalities not only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. It has also been held that a show-cause notice should contain the grounds of contemplated action as well as the penalty/action proposed to be imposed/taken. Clause 11.5.2 of the contract agreement executed between the petitioner and the JRHMS, Namkum, Ranchi is quoted hereinbelow:- “11.5.2- In the event of termination on unsatisfactory service or in violation of any of the terms and conditions, Performance Security Deposit shall stand forfeited without prejudice in addition to any other action the Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi may take as deemed fit including banning of Quess Corp. Ltd. for a period of 2 years from participating in any RFB. Ltd. for a period of 2 years from participating in any RFB. RFB published by the Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi communicating the termination of contract shall clearly mention the reason for termination of contract.” 13. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant documents brought on record. It appears that letter dated 21.07.2020 was issued by the Principal Administrative Officer, NHSRC, New Delhi to the petitioner stating dissatisfaction on number of issues expressed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 14.07.2020 regarding the support provided by it with a direction to provide its comments as to why appropriate action should not be taken for its de-empanelment and blacklisting. The petitioner replied the said letter on 31.07.2020 and thereafter no any formal order was passed by the respondent authorities with respect to blacklisting the petitioner. On 15.03.2021, the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) issued letters to all the Deputy Commissioners, Jharkhand informing that the petitioner and another agency namely SPC Management Services Pvt. Ltd. had been blacklisted. Curiously enough, no formal order of blacklisting has been brought on record by the respondents. The respondent authorities have tried to justify the impugned letter stating that since these agencies were empanelled by the NHSRC, New Delhi, the Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society had sent feedback to NHSRC, New Delhi on unsatisfactory services of the aforesaid agencies including the petitioner and in anticipation of the decision of NHSRC, New Delhi, the said impugned letter has been issued communicating to all the Deputy Commissioners of different districts with respect to blacklisting of the petitioner as well as another agency namely SPC Management Services Pvt. Ltd. which also suggested invitation of financial bid for appointment at district level on the vacant posts of National Health Mission, Jharkhand on contractual basis excluding these two agencies out of the six empanelled agencies. Though, the respondent no. Though, the respondent no. 3 was empowered to blacklist the petitioner for two years on account of unsatisfactory service, yet in view of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the said respondent was bound to follow the mandatory requirements before issuing the letter of blacklisting dated 15.03.2021 which otherwise did not mention the period of blacklisting and thus is to be construed for an indefinite period which is in violation of 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 reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 . 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned letter dated 15.03.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3 to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner by the State Headquarters of National Health Mission, Jharkhand, is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are, however, at liberty to take appropriate action with respect to blacklisting the petitioner only after following due procedure of law, if so advised. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.