Delhi High Court
Sybex Support Services (P) Ltd vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2017
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.05.2017
+ W.P.(C) 4912/2017 C M. No.21276/2017.
SYBEX SUPPORT SERVICES (P) LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari and Ms. Vishakha, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ripu Dhamn Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.
Ramesh Chand, Assistant Director (N) for R-1/UOI
Mr. Shadan Farasat, Mr. Ahmed Sai, Ms. Rudrakshi
Deo, Adv. with Mr. Kishan Kumar, Patwari
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
31.05.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, inter-alia, seeks quashing of letter dated
05.12.2016 (incorrectly typed as 05.12.2017 in the prayer clause) as
also the letter dated 09.12.2016 terminating the contract of the
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as relief
of termination of contract is concerned, he seeks liberty to withdraw
W.P.(C) 4912/2017 Page 1
the petition and reserves his right to take appropriate remedies in law.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition, to the extent, it
challenges letter dated 05.12.2017 is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty as prayed for.
4. The petitioner also impugns the letter dated 05.12.2016
whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause
notice or an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior
to blacklisting the petitioner and passing the impugned order dated
05.12.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent admits that no show cause
notice was given to the petitioner or an opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner prior to passing of order dated 05.12.2016.
7. It is a settled proposition of law that blacklisting amounts to
virtual civil death of a party and prior to passing an order of
blacklisting/debarring, a show cause notice is required to be given
putting the party to notice that party is likely to be blacklisted. Further
an opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner.
8. admittedly, neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity
of hearing was granted to the petitioner. On this technical ground
alone, the impugned order dated 05.12.2016 blacklisting the petitioner
is vitiated.
W.P.(C) 4912/2017 Page 2
9. In view of the above, the order dated 05.12.2016 blacklisting
the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are granted liberty to issue
a show cause notice and also grant an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner prior to passing any appropriate order.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
11. It is clarified that this court has neither examined nor
commented upon the merits of the contention of either party and the
respondents would be at liberty to consider the defence of the
petitioner, without being influenced by anything stated herein.
12. It is further clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to
take all remedies, as available in law, in case the petitioner is
aggrieved by any further order to be passed by the respondent.
13. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 31, 2017
'rs'
W.P.(C) 4912/2017 Page 3
W.P.(C) 4912/2017 Page 4
