Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Majid Bhat (64 Yrs.) vs Government Of J&K Through on 20 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 553/2023
Reserved on: 14.05.2026
Pronounced on: 20.05.2026
Uploaded on: 21.05.2026
Operative part or full Judgement: Full
Abdul Majid Bhat (64 Yrs.)
S/O Ghulam Mohi-u-Din Bhat
R/O Rangil, Ganderbal ...Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Lone Altaf, Advocate
Vs.
1. Government of J&K through
Commissioner/Secretary,
Jal Shakti Department,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Chief Engineer,
Jal Shakti, (PHE) Department,
Kashmir, Rajbagh Srinagar.
3. Executive Engineer,
Rangil Water Supply (R.W.S)
Division, Srinagar/Ganderbal.
4. Assistant Executive Engineer,
...Respondent(s)
Rangil Water Supply (R.W.S),
Division, Srinagar/Ganderbal.
Through:
Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
01. The petitioner, a registered contractor of the respondents’
department, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of
Order No. 88/JSD/ESTT. of 2025 dated 22.05.2025 and Order
No. 89/JSD/Estt. of 2025 dated 22.05.2025 whereby the petitioner
1
has been blacklisted/debarred for a period of two years and his
claim for release of outstanding dues has been rejected.
02. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition pleads that the
impugned orders are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of the
principles of natural justice. It is contended that the order of
blacklisting/debarment has been passed without issuance of any
prior show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, despite Rule 11 of the J&K Registration
of Contractors Rules, 1991 mandating issuance of notice before
blacklisting; that blacklisting has severe civil consequences
affecting the petitioner’s livelihood and right to carry on trade
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
and, therefore, strict adherence to principles of natural justice was
mandatory; that the respondents themselves allotted additional
work to the petitioner, which clearly establishes that the work
under the original contract had been satisfactorily executed; that
the respondents have passed the impugned orders only with a
view to evade legitimate financial liability towards the petitioner
after the petitioner approached this Court.
03. Respondents, in their reply submitted that the petitioner was
initially allotted the subject work for an amount of Rs.
70,29,807/- vide allotment order dated 28.09.2017 and
subsequently augmented by an additional component of Rs.
16,91,768/-, bringing the total project cost to Rs. 87,21,575/-. The
respondents maintain that Rs.60,28,772/- has already been
disbursed for the work executed to date. They contend that the
2
petitioner’s further claims, exceed the permissible limits
prescribed under Government Order No. 49-JK(JSD) of 2021
dated 25.02.2021 and cannot be processed without a revised
Technical Sanction (TS) and Administrative Approval (AA) from
the competent authority.
04. Furthermore, the respondents assert that the petitioner failed to
complete the work within the stipulated timeframe, which
hindered the functioning of the Water Supply Scheme and caused
significant public inconvenience. Due to this delay, the
Department was forced to deploy water tankers as an alternative
arrangement, resulting in an avoidable financial burden on the
State Exchequer. It was also noted that a Physical Verification
Committee has been constituted to assess the work performed;
however, their final report is currently pending.
05. It is further contended that the petitioner unlawfully obstructed
operation of the Water Treatment Plant by locking the premises,
thereby disrupting supply of drinking water to the general public
and causing huge financial loss to the State Exchequer; that two
show cause notices were issued to the petitioner prior to passing
of the impugned order and despite service of notices, the
petitioner failed to respond, compelling the respondent-
department to proceed further in public interest.
06. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds
urged in the writ petition, argued that the impugned orders have
been passed in complete disregard to the mandate of Rule 11 of
the J&K Registration of Contractors Rules, 1991 and in violation
3
of settled principles of natural justice. It is submitted that no
effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner
before inflicting the drastic consequence of blacklisting and
debarring him from future contracts. Learned counsel further
argued that the respondents, after having accepted and utilized the
work executed by the petitioner and having released substantial
payment thereagainst, cannot arbitrarily withhold the remaining
admitted dues by raising hyper-technical objections. It is further
contended that the action of the respondents is mala fide and
intended only to frustrate the legitimate claim of the petitioner
pending before this Court.
07. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand,
submitted that the impugned orders are reasoned orders passed
after due consideration of the material on record and after
issuance of show cause notices to the petitioner. It is, thus,
contended that the action of blacklisting and rejection of claim is
justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and warranted
no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had failed to
complete the allotted work within the stipulated timeframe and
had also undertaken certain works without approval and codal
sanction from the competent authority. It is argued that the
petitioner not only violated the terms and conditions of the
allotment order but also obstructed the functioning of the Water
Treatment Plant, thereby adversely affecting supply of drinking
water to the general public. He further argued that Clause (v) of
4
the main agreement provided that the work was to be completed
within five months from the expiry of 15 days from the date of
allotment and that the additional work allotted, though without
technical sanction and administrative approval, was also required
to be completed within five days from the date of allotment.
However, the petitioner delayed the execution of the work, which
had commenced in the year 2017, and has failed to complete the
same for handing over to the respondent-department for public
use. It is contended that, in view of the delay in execution of the
work, the petitioner, besides being blacklisted and debarred, was
also liable to be penalized at the rate of 10%. He further
submitted that the petitioner had already been paid an amount of
Rs.60,28,772/- whereas he has still laid a claim for an additional
amount of Rs.19,84,000/-, It is submitted that the department had
constituted a Verification Committee, which submitted its report,
pursuant whereto the respondent-department formulated a bill for
an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs proposed to be processed for
payment to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not agree to the
same and contended that the new norms could not be applied to
him; that the petitioner, under a self-help action, locked the entire
premises of the Reservoir/Plant and did not permit the
respondent-department to enter the complex.
08. The Government counsel lastly argued that the allotted project is
yet to be completed; and that the petitioner had approached this
Court with unclean hands by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
Court despite the matter involving disputed questions of facts. He
5
further argued that, under the provisions of the Commercial
Courts Act, the work allotted to the petitioner falls within the
ambit of a “commercial dispute” as defined under Section
2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for which forums
have also been notified in terms of Government Notification S.O.
No. 47 dated 04.02.2020. He also highlighted that the respondent-
department had to incur expenditure of more than Rs.11.00 lakhs
towards supplying potable drinking water to the residents, who
were expected to benefit from the completion of the project
allotted to the petitioner, which he delayed and has not completed
till date.
09. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the
pleadings on record, considered the rival submissions and
examined the original record produced by learned counsel for the
respondents.
10. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to e-NIT
No. 01/PHED/RWSD-Civil/SHG of 2017-18 relating to
construction of Filter House and Back Wash Tank for 0.5 MGD
R.S.F Plant at Rangil for WSS Rakhi Zakoora (D/S), the
petitioner was allotted the work vide Allotment Order No.
RWSD/115 of 2017-18 dated 28.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.
70,29,807/-. It is pleaded that during execution of the allotted
work, the respondents further entrusted additional work to the
petitioner amounting to Rs. 16,91,768/-, thereby taking the total
contractual value to Rs. 87,21,574/-. A supplementary agreement
was also executed between the parties; that he completed the
6
allotted work within time and to the satisfaction of the
department. However, despite execution of the work, the
respondents released only an amount of approximately Rs. 60
lakhs and withheld the balance amount of Rs. 27 lakhs along with
CDR/security deposits.
11. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner initially filed the present writ
petition seeking release of the outstanding amount with interest.
During pendency of the proceedings, the respondents filed
objections alleging that the petitioner had failed to complete the
work and had undertaken unauthorized works dehors the contract.
During consideration of the record, the impugned orders dated
22.05.2025 surfaced, whereafter, liberty was granted to the
petitioner to challenge the same by way of amendment. In this
backdrop, petitioner had amended the writ petition, challenging
the impugned orders passed on 22.05.2025.
12. The following questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned order of blacklisting/debarment
has been passed in violation of principles of natural
justice?
(ii) Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the
petitioner’s claim for release of outstanding dues?
(iii) Whether the impugned orders can withstand judicial
scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
13. Blacklisting of a contractor has serious civil and economic
consequences. Such action not only deprives a person from
participating in future tenders but also adversely affects his
reputation, business prospects and livelihood. The law regarding
blacklisting is no longer res integra. In Erusian Equipment &
7
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that blacklisting casts a stigma and
no order of blacklisting can be passed without affording
opportunity of hearing to the affected party. Similarly, in Patel
Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257, the Apex
Court reiterated that though the Government has inherent power
to blacklist a contractor, such power must be exercised fairly,
reasonably and in consonance with principles of natural justice.
14. Reliance has been placed by the respondents upon the judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Engineering Ltd.
v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257; Erusian Equipment &
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70; and
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11
SCC 548, to contend that the State possesses inherent power to
blacklist contractors in public interest.
15. Rule 11 of the J&K Registration of Contractors Rules, 1991
specifically provides that before suspending or blacklisting a
contractor, the competent authority shall serve a notice indicating
the grounds and afford an opportunity to show cause.
16. The respondents, in their objections as well as in the personal
affidavit filed pursuant to orders of this Court, have stated that
two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner before
passing the impugned order. However, from the record produced
before this Court, it emerges that though notices are stated to have
been issued, there is no material demonstrating effective
consideration of the petitioner’s response or any meaningful
8
opportunity of personal hearing before inflicting the drastic
consequence of blacklisting. A mere issuance of notice without
fair consideration of reply and adherence to due process would
not satisfy the mandate of natural justice.
17. Furthermore, the impugned order does not record any
independent finding regarding the petitioner’s explanation, nor
does it disclose application of mind to proportionality of
punishment. The order, therefore, suffers from procedural
infirmity.
18. The respondents have rejected the petitioner’s claim primarily on
the ground that certain works were executed without codal
formalities such as Administrative Approval and Technical
Sanction. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had
initially been allotted work by the department and substantial
payment has already been released in his favour.
19. The plea of the respondents that the petitioner undertook works
without authorization raises disputed questions of fact requiring
examination of contractual obligations, measurement books,
execution records and technical sanctions. Ordinarily, disputed
contractual claims involving adjudication of facts are not
amenable to writ jurisdiction. Nonetheless, where arbitrariness or
mala fide action on the part of the State is alleged, the Court can
certainly examine whether administrative action suffers from
illegality or procedural impropriety.
20. In the present case, the respondents have withheld dues
indefinitely, without proper adjudication, merely by branding the
9
works as unauthorized. At the same time, this Court is conscious
that determination of exact monetary liability would require
factual adjudication which may not be feasible in writ
proceedings.
21. The respondents have alleged that the petitioner obstructed
functioning of the Water Treatment Plant causing disruption of
public water supply. Such allegation, if true, is undoubtedly
serious in nature. However, no material has been placed before
this Court showing registration of any FIR, criminal proceedings
or adjudication by any competent authority conclusively
establishing the petitioner’s culpability. Administrative findings
affecting civil rights must rest upon cogent material and cannot be
founded merely upon unilateral departmental allegations.
22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned order of blacklisting/debarment dated
22.05.2025 cannot be sustained in law for non-compliance with
mandatory procedural safeguards and violation of principles of
natural justice. Consequently, Order No. 88/JSD/ESTT. of 2025
dated 22.05.2025 is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the
respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, strictly in accordance
with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
23. As regards the petitioner’s monetary claim with regard to the
contract, since the claim has not only been disputed but rejected
as well by the respondents on several aspects, therefore, same
cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction of this Court.
10
Contention of the respondents that the petitioner has an
efficacious remedy to lay a claim before a civil court having
commercial jurisdiction. Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, defines “commercial dispute” to include
disputes arising out of construction and infrastructure contracts,
including tenders. Therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioner
squarely falls within the ambit of a “commercial dispute” under
the said Act and is amenable to adjudication before the competent
Commercial Court, and not under the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
24. In view of the above, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach
the competent Civil Court/Commercial Court with regard to his
claim for release of outstanding dues, which has been rejected by
the respondent-department.
25. The writ petition is, accordingly, partially allowed, quashing
impugned Order No. Order No. 88/JSD/ESTT. of 2025 dated
22.05.2025, and with a direction to assail impugned Order No.
89/JSD/Estt. of 2025 dated 22.05.2025 before Civil Court having
jurisdiction.
26. The record be returned to Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-department.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
20.05.2026
Manzoor
11
