JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy covered by the order passed by this Court in Sukha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16538/2018) decided on 13.12.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the applicability of the order passed in Sukha Ram's case (supra) on the ground that in Sukha Ram's case (supra), there was a clear violation of Rule 14(14) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules of 2017) as there was no notice at all for blacklisting whereas in this case, there is a specific notice for blacklisting which has been given and is on record. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that once the compliance of the notice of Rule 14(14) of the Rules of 2017 has been made, the order passed by this Court in Sukha Ram's case (supra) would not apply and the petitions ought to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners however has taken this Court to the language of Rule 14 (14), which reads as follows: "(14) The Director after debarring the bidder may blacklist the bidder for participating in future auctions for a period of five years after giving him a fifteen day's notice." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a conscious statutory provision of Rule 14(14) of the Rules of 2017, which requires that after debarring the bidder, the bidder can be blacklisted after giving him 15 days' notice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that multiple use of word 'after' in the statute clearly requires the respondents to first complete the debarring proceedings and thereafter, contemplate the blacklisting of the bidder, if so required. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as viewing the statute, particularly, Rule 14(14) of the Rules of 2017, this Court is of the firm opinion that the statute required the respondents to first complete the debarring proceedings, and thereafter, the proceedings of blacklisting the bidder after giving him 15 days' notice. When an absolute interpretation/grammatical interpretation/plain meaning rule/strict interpretation/literal interpretation/statutory interpretation is available in the statute itself, there is no requirement of giving it a different meaning at all and particularly, when the rule itself prescribes the parameters of natural justice in the form of giving 15 days' time after debarring the concerned bidder, in case, he is required to be blacklisted. 9. In view of the above, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2018 (wrongly mentioned as 23.07.2017) stand quashed only qua blacklisting of the present petitioners as done by the respondents in pursuance of Rule 14(14) of the Rules of 2017 for lack of proper notice after debarring the petitioners. It is needless to say that in case any proceedings have to be drawn, then it shall be enough for blacklisting hereinafter in this particular matter, wherefore a fresh notice under Rule 14(14) of the Rules of 2017 shall be given by the respondents, and thereafter, they shall be free to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law. 10. The stay applications stand disposed of accordingly.