ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Banjare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 24.08.2021 issued by the respondent for work of temporary patch repairing work at coal transportation road near Songara of Mahan sub area of Bhatgaon area, the petitioner was awarded the work for a total value of Rs. 10,19,520/- by an order dated 24.09.2021. 3. The order dated 24.09.2021 clearly stated that the petitioner should commence work within a period of ten days of issuance of the letter or handing over of the site, which ever is earlier and period of completion of work shall be fifteen days. The site for project was handed over to the petitioner on 01.10.2021 and therefore, the date of completion was to be 15.10.2021. 4. On 23.11.2021, the Staff Officer (Civil) Bhatgaon Area of the respondent issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner had neither started the work nor had submitted the work programme despite several requests being made in that regard. It was observed that the petitioner was not interested to take up the work and blocked important work. Accordingly, invoking Clause 6.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of the NIT, which is not enclosed by the petitioner in this petition, it was recorded as follows: “If the contractor, without reasonable cause or valid reasons, commits defaults in commencing the work withing the aforesaid time limit, the company shall, without prejudice to any other right or remedy, be at liberty, by giving 15 day’s notice in writing to the contractor to commence the work, falling which to rescind the Letter of Acceptance of Tender/Work Order. The bidders will be banned for 02(two) years for being eligible to submit bids in CIL and its subsidiaries with the approval of Tender Acceptance Authority with intimation to all concerned and online blocking of bidder shall be done on receipt of written communication from the Tender inviting Authority by application admin of CIL e-Procurement Portal. In light of the above department has no option other than to serve you 15 day’s notice in reference to above. This may be treated as final 15 day’s notice.” 5. In light of the above department has no option other than to serve you 15 day’s notice in reference to above. This may be treated as final 15 day’s notice.” 5. In the letter dated 25.11.2022, the petitioner indicated certain difficulties faced by him but there is no denial of the fact that he had not given the work programme as alleged in the letter dated 23.11.2021. Subsequently, by an order dated 29.01.2022, the following action was taken: “(i) Cancellation of your bid against NIT No. GM/BHAT/CVL/eTENDER/21-22/32 dated 24.08.2021 and to rescind the letter of acceptance of tender/Work Order. (ii) Debarring from participation in Re-tender for the above work. (iii) Forfeiture of EMD of Rs. 30,586.00 deposited by you for this work. (iv) Debarring from participating in all future tenders of SECL, Bhatgaon Area for a period of 24 (Month) from the date of issue of this letter.” 6. By filing this petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: “10(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to cancel the letter of debarring him from work. 10(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his work as per work order. 10(iii) Any appropriate direction or order in favour of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very much interested to do the work and therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent to allow the petitioner to do the work which was started by him. It is further submitted that black-listing of the petitioner without issuing a show-cause notice is bad in law and therefore, the order of black-listing is liable to be set-aside. 8. Dr. Agrawal submits that the petitioner has not made any prayer for cancellation of the bid of the petitioner and rescinding of the work order and therefore, the question of permitting the petitioner to do the work does not arise. It is further submitted that, even otherwise, the petitioner did not do any work up to 23.11.2022, though the work was to be completed on or before 15.10.2022 and therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no direction as sought for by Mr. It is further submitted that, even otherwise, the petitioner did not do any work up to 23.11.2022, though the work was to be completed on or before 15.10.2022 and therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no direction as sought for by Mr. Banjare may be passed in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Dr. Agrawal submits that though specifically notice to show-cause was not issued with regard to black-listing of the petitioner but letter dated 29.11.2022 would go to show that the petitioner was, in essence, asked to show-cause against the order of black-listing. 10. We will take up the issue of black-listing of the petitioner first. 11. In Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that 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. 12. On perusal of letter dated 29.01.2022, we are of the opinion that the said order falls far short of requirement of principles of natural justice with regard to black-listing of the petitioner. It has to be accepted that no notice was issued before black-listing the petitioner and therefore, the order dated 29.01.2022 so far as the black-listing of the petitioner is concerned is interfered with. However, liberty is reserved for the respondent to take steps if so advised in accordance with law with regard to black-listing of the petitioner. 13. So far as argument advanced by Mr. Banjare to allow him to continue the work, we are of the opinion that present is not a case where this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue any such direction, as prayed for. 14. Taking that view, this writ petition is partly allowed. No cost.