PRAVIN KARSHAN KOLIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/5414/2026                       ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.        5414 of 2026

=====================================================
                 PRAVIN KARSHAN KOLI
                        Versus
             THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HENIL SHAH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
=====================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                       Date : 17/07/2026

                            ORDER


1.    By way of the present petition, the petitioner

herein has prayed for the following reliefs:


      “(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit
      and allow this petition;

      (b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue
      appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
      the respondents to produce the records before
      this Hon’ble Court leading them to take action
      of blacklisting the vehicle on Vahan Portal
      bearing Hyundai i20 car No. GJ-12-DG-9758;

      (c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue
      appropriate writ, order or direction to quash
      and set aside the action of the respondent No.5


                            Page 1 of 8
      C/SCA/5414/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




       – RTO of showing the status of vehicle bearing
       Hyundai i20 car No. GJ-12-DG-9758 as blacklisted
       from ‘Vahan Portal’, which is at Annexure- A;

       (d) Pending    admission   final   hearing   and
       disposal of this petition, direct the respondent
       Nos.2 to 5 to remove the endorsement on Vahan
       Portal as being blacklisted of vehicle bearing
       Hyundai i20 car No. GJ-12-DG-9758 which is at
       Annexure – A;

       (e) Grant such other and further relief                                          as
       thought fit in the interest of justice.”

2.     Heard            Mr.     Jay       N.      Shah,       learned        advocate

appearing         for         the   petitioner          and    Mr.    Henil       Shah,

learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents.


3.     The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action

undertaken by the respondent No.5 – RTO of showing

the status of vehicle being Hyundai i20 car No. GJ-

12-DG-9758 blacklisted on the ‘Vahan Portal’, which

is owned by the petitioner.


4.     Mr. Jay N. Shah, learned advocate appearing for

the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is the

owner of the vehicle being Hyundai i20 car No. GJ-12-

DG-9758. Mr. Shah, learned advocate, submitted that

the       action          of        the        respondent         authority             of



                                          Page 2 of 8
     C/SCA/5414/2026                              ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




blacklisting           the   vehicle-in-question            on      ‘Vahan

Portal’ is without granting opportunity of hearing

and the same is against the cardinal principles of

natural justice.


4.    Mr.      Henil    Shah,   learned       Assistant      Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, was not

in a position to controvert the aforesaid submissions

advanced by Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for

the petitioner.


5.    At this stage it is apposite to refer to the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of

Central Excise reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, relevant

para-27 of the order reads thus:


      “27. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes
      clear that the opportunity to provide hearing
      before making any decision was considered to be
      a basic requirement in the Court proceeding.
      Later on, this principle was applied to other
      quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals
      and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that
      even in the administrative actions, where the
      decision of the authority may result in civil
      consequences, a hearing before taking a decision
      is necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K.
      Kraipak's case (supra) that if the purpose of


                                Page 3 of 8
   C/SCA/5414/2026                   ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




    rules   of   natural  justice is  to  prevent
    miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how
    these rules should not be made available to
    administrative inquiries.”

5.1 In the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited

v/s. Food Corporation of India and Anr. reported in

AIR 2021 SC (CIVIL) 833, relevant Paras-13, 14, 16,

17, 18, 19 and 26 reads thus:


   “13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is
   the first principle of civilised jurisprudence
   that a person against whom any action is sought
   to be taken or whose right or interests are being
   affected should be given a reasonable opportunity
   to defend himself. The basic principle of natural
   justice is that before adjudication starts, the
   authority concerned should give to the affected
   party a notice of the case against him so that he
   can defend himself. Such notice should be
   adequate and the grounds necessitating action and
   the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned
   specifically   and    unambiguously.   An   order
   travelling beyond the bounds of notice is
   impermissible and without jurisdiction to that
   extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant
   Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Lucknow and
   Anr. , 1 has held that it is essential for the
   notice to specify the particular grounds on the
   basis of which an action is proposed to be taken
   so as to enable the notice to answer the case
   against   him. If these conditions       are not
   satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been
   granted any reasonable opportunity of being
   heard.

   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,


                       Page 4 of 8
C/SCA/5414/2026                  ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




particularized and unambiguous show cause notice
is particularly crucial due to the severe
consequences     of     blacklisting    and   the
stigmatization 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. Not only does blacklisting takes
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.

16. The severity of the effects of blacklisting
and the resultant need for strict observance of
the principles of natural justice before passing
an order of blacklisting were highlighted by this
Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v.
State of West Bengal in the following terms:

 “12. ... The order of blacklisting has the
 effect of depriving a person of equality of
 opportunity   in   the   matter  of   public
 contract. A person who is on the approved
 list is unable to enter into advantageous
 relations with the Government because of the
 order of blacklisting. A person who has been
 dealing with the Government in the matter of
 sale and purchase of materials has a
 legitimate interest or expectation. When the
 State acts to the prejudice of a person it
 has to be supported by legality.
 XXX XXX


                   Page 5 of 8
C/SCA/5414/2026                    ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




 15. ... The blacklisting order involves
 civil consequences. It casts a slur. It
 creates a barrier between the persons
 blacklisted and the Government in the matter
 of   transactions.  The   black  lists   are
 instruments of coercion.
 XXX XXX

 20.   Blacklisting     has     the    effect   of
 preventing a person from the privilege and
 advantage     of     entering      into    lawful
 relationship     with    the    Government    for
 purposes   of    gains.    The    fact   that   a
 disability is created by the order of
 blacklisting indicates that the relevant
 authority    is    to     have    an    objective
 satisfaction. 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.”

17. Similarly, this Court in Raghunath Thakur
v. State of Bihar,      struck down an order of
blacklisting for future contracts on the ground
of non-observance of the principles of natural
justice. The relevant extract of the judgment in
that case is as follows:

 “4. ... [I]t is an implied principle of the
 rule of law that any order having civil
 consequences should be passed only after
 following the principles of natural justice.
 It has to be realised that blacklisting any
 person in respect of business ventures has
 civil consequence for the future business of
 the person concerned in any event. Even if
 the rules do not express so, it is an
 elementary principle of natural justice that
 parties affected by any order should have
 right    of   being    heard    and   making
 representations against the order.”

18. This Court in Gorkha Security Services v.


                     Page 6 of 8
C/SCA/5414/2026                  ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. has described
blacklisting as being equivalent to the civil
death of a person because blacklisting is
stigmatic in nature and debars a person from
participating   in  government   tenders thereby
precluding him from the award of government
contracts. It has been held thus:

 “16. 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.”

19. In light of the above decisions, it is clear
that a prior show cause 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.

26.   In  view   of  our   conclusion   that  the
blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the
Corporation is contrary to the principles of
natural justice, it is unnecessary for us to
consider the other contentions of the learned


                   Page 7 of 8
       C/SCA/5414/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




       counsel for the appellant. Having regard to the
       peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
       case, we deem it appropriate not to remit the
       matter    to    the   Corporation   for   fresh
       consideration.”

6.        Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court, as referred above, in the facts of the

present case, the action undertaken by the respondent

No.5        –      RTO        of       blacklisting                   the        vehicle             of       the

petitioner being Hyundai i20 car No. GJ-12-DG-9758 on

‘Vahan Portal’ is quashed and set aside. However,

liberty is reserved for the respondent authority to

initiate appropriate proceedings after issuance of

show cause notice and after following due process of

law.


9.        With        the        aforesaid               observations,                    the        present

petition             stands           allowed             to      the        aforesaid               extent.

Direct service is permitted.


                                                                           (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)


Pallavi



 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: PALLAVIBEN PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2026 17:02:15




                                                   Page 8 of 8