Panchayat Samiti Cannot Directly Blacklist Contractors Without Sequential Debarment Procedure And Hearing: Calcutta High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Kausik Chanda set aside a six-month blacklisting imposed on a contractor by a Panchayat Samiti in relation to alleged non-commencement and delay in executing a rural road construction work. Holding that blacklisting carries serious civil consequences, the Court found the debarment process under West Bengal Form No. 2911 to be sequential and not open to bypass and concluded that the Panchayat Samiti acted without jurisdiction and without adequate hearing, while leaving liberty to restart proceedings as per the prescribed procedure.
The petitioners were awarded a work order on February 9, 2024, for the construction of a CC road in Murshidabad, to be completed within 60 days. They failed to commence the work within the stipulated period and later sought an extension, promising completion by July 10, 2024. Following inspections, a revised estimate was submitted to the Zilla Parishad in December 2024, and the petitioners were again requested in March 2025 to begin work.
On May 19, 2025, the Panchayat Samiti directed the petitioners to commence and complete the work expeditiously. As no progress was made, a show‑cause notice dated July 10, 2025, was issued proposing cancellation, forfeiture of earnest money, and blacklisting. The petitioners replied on July 25, 2025, citing delays and promising to start in November 2025. Another show‑cause notice was issued on December 24, 2025, for the same reasons. In their reply dated December 29, 2025, the petitioners attributed the delay to flooding that damaged the road.
On December 30, 2025, the Tender Committee recommended cancellation, forfeiture, and blacklisting for six months. The Panchayat Samiti accepted the recommendation and issued the blacklisting order on January 2, 2026. The petitioners challenged this order, contending that the prescribed procedure under West Bengal Form No. 2911 was not followed.
Justice Kausik Chanda recorded: “It is necessary at this stage to analyse the procedure for debarment. The Standard Bid Document (West Bengal Form No. 2911) prescribes a multi-stage structured mechanism for debarment. The procedure is sequential and cannot be bypassed.”
The Court stated: “Under Clause (A), debarment proceedings can begin only after termination of the contract due to default, upon which the Engineer-in-Charge must recommend debarment to the Bid Evaluation Committee.” It was further observed: “The Bid Evaluation Committee must then submit a detailed report with reasons to the Debarment Committee within 30 days.”
Justice Chanda noted: “Under Clause (B), the Debarment Committee must scrutinize documents, hold a hearing of the bidder, and issue an order within 10 working days from the last date of hearing.” The Court recorded: “If the Debarment Committee recommends debarment, the matter must be forwarded to the Department, which alone can issue the final debarment order.”
On the facts of the case, the Court observed: “It is evident that, in blacklisting the petitioners, the respondent authorities did not comply with the provisions of the ‘Procedure for Debarment during the Contract Implementation Stage.’”
The Court stated: “A show-cause notice ought to have been issued by the Panchayat Samiti only after receipt of the recommendation of the Tender Committee to provide the petitioners an effective opportunity of hearing.”
It was recorded: “In the present case, however, the show-cause notice dated December 24, 2025 was issued prior to the recommendation of the Tender Committee, and the decision to blacklist the petitioners was thereafter taken by the Panchayat Samiti without giving them any further scope to deal with the allegations levelled against them.”
The Court observed: “The resolutions of the Tender Committee and the Panchayat Samiti further indicate that only the petitioners’ reply to the first show-cause notice dated July 10, 2025 was considered, whereas their reply to the subsequent show-cause notice dated December 24, 2025 was neither discussed nor considered.”
Most importantly, the Court stated: “The power to blacklist vests exclusively in the concerned department, namely the Panchayat Department of the State. In the present case, the blacklisting order was issued by the Panchayat Samiti, rendering the order without jurisdiction.”
The Court directed: “In view of the foregoing, the blacklisting order dated January 2, 2026 is set aside. This, however, shall not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating a fresh blacklisting proceeding against the petitioners, after duly considering their reply dated December 29, 2025 to the show-cause notice dated December 24, 2025, and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the ‘Procedure for Debarment during the Contract Implementation Stage,’ as explained in this judgment. Accordingly, W.P.A. No.561 of 2026 is allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sujoy Mondal, Adv.; Mr. Subhendu Sengupta, Adv.; Mr. Rishav Das Barman, Adv.
Case Title: M/S. Rahaman Construction And Another vs. The State of West Bengal And Others
Case Number: W.P.A. No.561 of 2026
Bench: Justice Kausik Chanda
