M/S. TURTLE INFRAversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND ANR

                                                                                 1/5                  906 WP-840-19.odt

                                                   Salgaonkar

MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
                 Digitally signed by MANDIRA
                 MILIND SALGAONKAR
                 Date: 2026.08.24 17:36:07 +0530
                                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                                     WRIT PETITION NO.850 OF 2022


                                                   M/s Turtle Infra                            ..   Petitioner
                                                                      Versus
                                                   Union of India & Anr.                       ..   Respondents


                                                                                       …

                                                   Mr.Mihir S. Raje with Ms.Aditi Sirsava for the Petitioner.

                                                   Ms.Shehnaz V. Bharucha with Mr.Mohamedali M. Chunawala
                                                   for the Respondents.

                                                                        CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                                               ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
                                                                        DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2026
                                                                                       ...

                                                   P.C:-

                                                   1.       Rule.   Rule is made returnable forthwith.         Heard by
                                                   consent of the parties.


                                                   2.       The Petition is filed by the Petitioner, being aggrieved by
                                                   the removal of its name from the approved list of the
                                                   Contractors, maintained by the Chief Engineer, Southern
                                                   Command.
                                                            The Petition seeks a relief of quashing and setting aside
                                                   of the impugned order, which has directed the Petitioner’s
                                                   name to be removed from the list, which has a permanent
                                                   effect.
                                 2/5                     906 WP-840-19.odt

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. By
consent of the parties, we have taken up the Petition for final
hearing.          The position of law as regards the duration of
blacklisting/debarring of the Contractor, by this time, has been
well settled and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kulija
Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western
Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. 1 has
clearly laid down the proposition of law to the effect that
blacklisting will only preclude the party from participating in
the tender process for a specific period of time and the
relevant portion of the decision, specifically reads thus :-
     “25.        Suffice it to say that “debarment” is recognised and often
     used as an effective method for disciplining deviant
     suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission
     and commission or frauds including misrepresentations,
     falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under
     which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the
     “debarment” is never permanent and the period of debarment
     would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed
     by the erring contractor.”


          This decision is subsequently followed in number of
decisions, to clearly highlight that before blacklisting of a
contractor, it will be necessary to issue a show-cause notice
and pursuant to the reply being received, by adhering to the
principles of natural justice, only on finding adequate and
justiciable ground, an action of blacklisting shall be initiated.
Blacklisting has always been considered to have severe
consequences, as it result into stigmatization that accrues to
the person or entity, which is blacklisted and has an effect of
denying a person or entity the privileged opportunity of

1    (2014) 14 SCC 731
                                      3/5                   906 WP-840-19.odt

entering into the Government contracts. It is in light of this
prevailing position as regards the blacklisting, the Apex Court
in recent decision in the case of Mar’s Developers and
Suppliers Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.2, by relying upon Kulija
Industries Ltd. (supra), has specifically held that an order of
debarment, which did not specify the period of its operation,
cannot be sustained and assuming that it had a life of one year,
which is also over, the debarment period was declared to be
over.


4.       It being a well settled position in law that without
specifying         the       maximum        time    limit   for    which        the
debarment/blacklisting shall continue, we must note that the
show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner on 11/05/2019, in
terms of the directions of the High Court, issued in Writ
Petition No.13390 of 2018, which directed an opportunity to be
granted to the Petitioner, for explaining the alleged lapses, on
consideration of the lapses, show-cause notice is issued, calling
upon it to show-cause as to why the firm shall not be removed
from the approved list of ‘C’ class contractor of the Head
Quarter or banned for further issue of tenders for a period of
five years or any other disciplinary action, as may be deemed
fit, shall not be initiated against it.               However, despite the
Petitioner being asked to show-cause as to why it shall not be
debarred         for        five   years,   the    impugned       order    dated
22/07/20219 in form of a disciplinary action, relying upon the
gravity of the accusations, record that since the noticee was
not able to furnish any satisfactory/credible explanation to the
show-cause notice dated 11/05/2019, in exercise of the powers
2    2025 SCC OnLine 3327
                           4/5                 906 WP-840-19.odt

conferred to the Authority, being the Registering Authority, he
directed the removal of the firm, M/s Turtle Infra from the
approved list of Contractors of Chief Engineer, Southern
Command without specifying any time limit.
     In the wake of the well settled law that blacklisting or
debarment which has serious civil consequences, without
getting into the merits of the matter, and justiciability of
imposition of penalty in form of blacklisting, we set aside the
impugned order dated 22/07/2019, by restricting it to a period
of five years, as indicated in the show-cause notice, as that
could have been the maximum period for which even the
Department intended to debar it. However, as the impugned
order does not mention any specific period, without getting
into the merits of the accusations faced and the justification in
imposing the debarment for a period of five years, since the
period of five years has already expired, we direct that the
debarment order shall cease to exist on expiry of period of five
years from the date when it is passed.
     In the wake of the aforesaid, since the period of five years
is over, we declare that the blacklisting/debarment of the
Petitioner or removal of its name from the approved list of ‘C’
class contractor maintained by the Chief Engineer, Southern
Command shall be rectified to include the name of the
Petitioner, upon expiry of period of five years from the date
when the impugned order has been passed.


5.   Though the learned counsel Ms.Bharucha representing
the Respondents Authority has vehemently argued before us
that the seriousness of the accusations warranted imposition
                           5/5                    906 WP-840-19.odt

of severe penalty, we are unable to subscribe to her view, as we
are of the view that whatsoever the accusations may be or
howsoever serious they are, if the debarment cannot be for
indefinite period and has to have a time-line and since it was
also open for the Disciplinary Authority to prescribe a
debarment for five years and we would not have interfered, but
when in the show-cause notice it is indicated as to why the
name shall not be removed for a period of five years, we
restrict the period of debarment to five years.


6.    We direct the Respondents to include the name of the
Petitioner in the list, as directed above, by taking necessary
steps within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt
of the order.
      Rule is made absolute in the aforestated terms.



(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)                (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)