Case Summary
Case Title: M/s S.G. Print-N-Pack Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Petition Number: W.P. (C) No. 4283 of 2024
Category of Dispute: Blacklisting in government tenders / Contractual disputes
Date of Judgment: 20.02.2025
Relevant Sections / Rules: Principles of natural justice under Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of Constitution; tender conditions (Clause 12 of Agreement)
Facts (Paras 1–12)
The petitioner, a printing company incorporated in 2020, was awarded a rated tender by the Jharkhand Health Department for supply of brochures, leaflets, and related materials. Though purchase orders were issued in October 2022, the petitioner failed to supply within the stipulated timelines. The department issued multiple show-cause notices, but the petitioner blamed discrepancies in GST inclusion and order specifications. Even after partial supplies in 2023 and 2024, delays persisted. Meanwhile, before the petitioner could participate in a new tender in June 2024, the department blacklisted it for three years (19.07.2024). The petitioner challenged the order as arbitrary, mala fide, and aimed at excluding it from future tenders.
Questions for Determination (Para 12, 14)
-
Whether the order of blacklisting dated 19.07.2024 violated principles of natural justice?
-
Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or mala fide in excluding the petitioner from tenders?
Observations of the Court (Paras 13–16)
The Court noted that:
-
Purchase orders dated 10.10.2022 and 28.10.2022 had specific deadlines of 45 and 30 days respectively, which were not adhered to.
-
Similar delay occurred in subsequent purchase orders, including 24.11.2023.
-
Replies to show-cause notices were duly considered by the Tender Committee, which cited Clause 12 of the Agreement requiring completion of work regardless of circumstances.
-
The petitioner’s explanation about GST mismatch and discrepancies could not excuse delay. If the petitioner genuinely found purchase orders erroneous, it could have terminated the contract instead of defaulting.
-
The decision to blacklist was preceded by notice, reply, and consideration, hence natural justice was not violated.
Judgment (Paras 16–17)
The Court upheld the blacklisting order of 19.07.2024, holding that there was no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000, payable to the Jharkhand High Court Services Committee within four weeks.
Cases Referred – Tabular Summary
| Case | Court’s Verdict / Principle |
|---|---|
| (This judgment did not cite external precedents; decision was based on contractual terms and natural justice principles.) | N.A. |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway)
For businesses, tender contracts are binding in their timelines. Disputes on pricing (GST inclusion) or order details must be raised formally, but failure to perform on time will still justify blacklisting. Courts will not intervene if due notice and hearing are given, even if the contractor alleges mala fides.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
