The Allahabad High Court, while setting aside an order of blacklisting, observed that it was imperative upon the respondent authorities to consider the reply given by the petitioner in totality and the mere rejection by using the term "reply is not satisfactory" is uncalled for and cannot be accepted.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order dated 23.1.2024 passed by the Executive Director, State Water and Sanitation Mission, U.P., Lucknow whereby petitioner has been debarred from making any supply to any project of Jal Jeevan Mission.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that while passing the impugned order, the Executive Director had not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner at all, and only this much has been said that the petitioner's reply has not been found satisfactory. It was further argued that the petitioner firm had been debarred from making supply for an indefinite period, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, had categorically held that debarment or blacklisting could not be done for an indefinite period.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been found satisfactory, and, therefore, the impugned order has been passed. It was further submitted that the impugned order could not be termed as an order for blacklisting for an indefinite period as the term of the State Water and Sanitation Mission itself shall come to an end on 31.12.2024.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that before passing the impugned order dated 23.1.2024 petitioner was issued a show cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply and also made a request for re-testing of pipes supplied by the petitioner, and the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered at all while passing the impugned order dated 23.1.2024 and only this much has been said that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been found satisfactory. The court stated that once a proper reply was submitted, it was obligatory for the respondents to consider the entire reply, and thereafter, by recording reasons, the order of blacklisting/debarment could have been passed.
The court referred to the decision in the case of A.K. Construction Company v. Union of India and Others, wherein it was held that if the decision of blacklisting is against the principles of natural justice or the doctrine of proportionality, it can be subjected to judicial review. It was further observed by the court that the entire concept of blacklisting is required to be seen in a holistic manner and what has to be appreciated that an order of blacklisting/debarment of a particular firm is in the nature of punishment which carries with civil consequences for a firm and an order of blacklisting is accordingly required to be passed taking into consideration all aspects and should not be passed in a casual and cavalier manner as the same has an impact on the person for which such blacklisting is done.
The court concluded that it was imperative upon the respondent authorities to consider the reply given by the petitioner in totality and the mere rejection by using the term "reply is not satisfactory" is uncalled for and cannot be accepted.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned order with liberty to respondents to pass fresh order after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Case Title: M/s Hi Tech Pipe Limited vs. State of U.P and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manjive Shukla
Case No.: Writ (C) No. - 11037 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Ronak Chaturvedi, Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Om
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
