[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Baba Saheb Ambedkar Technical ... vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2139/2023 and CM APPL. 8080/2023, CM APPL.
23138/2023
Date of Decision: 08.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL
SOCIETY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ajay Chaudhary and Ms
Sakshi Mendiratta, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC with
Mr. Amit Acharya, Govt. Pleader.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
"[ a] Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Order dated 30.01.2023
passed by the Respondent by which the Petitioner has been blacklisted
for a period of 5 years; and
[b] Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the recovery notice dated
07.02.2023 issued by Respondent for recovery of Rs.1,03,77,450/-
[Rupees one crore three lakh seventy seven thousand and four hundred
fifty only] from the Petitioner; and
[ c] Issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondent to activate the
SAK portal and permit the Petitioner to upload the requisite data and
documents for the purpose of release of 2nd and 3rd instalments of 50%
and 20% of the project cost in terms of sanction letter dated 12.03.2019;
and
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
[d] Issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondent to pay to the
Petitioner a sum of Rs.1,39,23,290/- [Rupees one crore thirty nine lakh
twenty three thousand two hundred ninety only] being the amount
payable to the Petitioner towards the 2nd and 3rd instalments of 50% and
20% of the project cost in terms of sanction letter dated 12.03.2019; and
[ e] Pass any other and further order( s) as may be deemed fit."
2. The petitioner is registered as a 'training partner' on the SMART
(Skill India) portal operated by the National Skill Development Corporation
under the Union of India. It was sanctioned projects for imparting
placement-linked training to minority youth for the target years 2018-19
vide sanction order dated 12.03.2019 under the 'Seekho aur Kamao Scheme
of the Union.
3. Owing to the non-submission of the relevant documents, the
respondents issued show cause notice dated 26.07.2022 proposing
cancellation of the allocation to the petitioner and recovery of all funds
already disbursed under the scheme. Further, the respondent even issued a
provisional blacklisting order against the petitioner dated 24.11.2022,
blacklisting the petitioner for a period of five years. The petitioner replied to
the notice of provisional blacklisting, contending that the non-submission
was on account of a technical glitch in the portal operated by the respondent.
Dissatisfied with the reply, the respondent has issued the impugned orders
for blacklisiting the petitioner and seeking recovery of the funds already
disbursed under the Scheme.
4. The petitioner has also filed C.M. Appl 23138/2023 seeking interim
relief pending disposal of the petition. This Court, vide order dated
12.05.2023, had taken note of the submission on behalf of the petitioner that
it had uploaded details of around seven hundred and thirty students, and
directed the respondents to verify the aforesaid information, if actually
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
uploaded.
5. Pursuant to order dated 12.05.2023, the concerned officer of the
respondent has filed an affidavit dated 11.08.2023, stating that the details of
seven hundred and forty-one candidates were found to be uploaded on the
portal.
6. Mr Puneet Mittal, learned senior counsel, submits that with respect to
remaining students as well, the circumstances surrounding the non-
submission of the students' details may be considered by the respondent.
7. The Court finds that for the remaining students whose details have
been found to have not been uploaded, the petitioner may submit a
representation with the concerned department. The concerned department
shall look into the same and take an appropriate decision with due
expedition.
8. Let the impugned action be reconsidered by the concerned department
in view of the facts and circumstances, which have now emerged.
9. Petition stands disposed of.
10. All rights and contentions are left open.
11. If the grievance of the petitioner is not fully mitigated, he shall be at
liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 8, 2026/P
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
