[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vh Securities Limited vs Telecommunications Consultants India ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9242/2022, CM APPL. 27709/2022 and CM APPL.
26640/2023
Date of Decision: 20.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
VH SECURITIES LIMITED
Through its Authorised Representative
Mr. Anil Sahi
B-525, New Friends Colony .....Petitioner
(Through: Mr. Mayank Bughani, Advocate.)
versus
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED
Through its Managing Director
TCIL Bhawan
Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi-110048 .....Respondent
(Through: Mr Arun Sanwal, Mr Aditya Mani Sharma, Mr Jasbir
Bidhuri, Mr Akshit Gupta Advocates.)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
"a. Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:00:57
KUMAR KAURAV
direction setting aside the impugned Letter dated 20.09.2021 issued by
the Respondent;
b. Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
direction to the Respondent not to take any action pursuant to the
impugned Letter dated 20.09.2021;
c. Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
direction to the Respondent to withdraw the suspension/ban/debarment
of the Petitioner as contemplated in the impugned Letter dated
20.09.2021 and to allow the Petitioner to participate in all future
Tenders which may be issued by the Respondent from time to time;
d. Pass any other order/orders as may be deemed fit in the given facts
and circumstances."
2. The petitioner seeks for setting aside the communication dated
20.09.2021, issued by the respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been
declared ineligible to participate in any tender from the respondent for a
period of three years.
3. However, it is noted that the said period of three years has expired,
therefore, the order of debarment has already lived its life.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies on various
decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of UMC Technologies
Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr.1 with specific
reliance on observation made in paragraph no.14 thereof, which is extracted
as under:-
"14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by
the state or a state corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularized
and unambiguous show cause notice is particularly crucial due to the
severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatization that accrues
to the person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe
the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences
occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an
entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts.
(2021) 2 SCC 551
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:00:57
KUMAR KAURAV
This privilege arises because it is the State who is the counterparty in
government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be afforded
an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without
arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting takes away
this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person's reputation and
brings the person's character into question. Blacklisting also has long-
lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the
blacklisted person."
5. He also relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case titled as
Kulja Industries Limited v. Western Telecom Project BSNL2 to submit that
while the freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of
private parties, however, when such decision is taken by the State or any of
its instrumentalities, the same is subject to judicial review on the touchstone
of fairness, relevance, natural justice, non-discrimination, equality and
proportionality.
6. Reliance in also placed on the decision in the case of Gorkha Security
Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors3 to submit that an order of
blacklisting has adverse civil consequences and, therefore, the objective of
blacklisting should not be to penalize any person/entity. The impugned
action of the respondent in blacklisting the Petitioner acts as "civil death" of
the petitioner as it is debarred from participating in government tenders,
thereby precluding such person from being awarded government contracts.
7. Further, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Bombay High
Court in the case of JK. Surface Coatings Private Limited y. Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation4, wherein, the Court has observed that the fact
that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the
relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction before such an order is
(2014) 14 SCC 731
(2014) 9 SCC 105
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:00:57
KUMAR KAURAV
passed. Merely due to some contractual disputes, a banning order passed by
the concerned authority would be too harsh. Only on the basis of some
contractual violations which have an equally efficacious remedy available
for redressal of those violations, cannot be the only ground to for passing the
banning order.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not
afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing before the impugned decision was
taken. He also submits that the impugned order was issued about one year
from the completion of the work. According to him, the petitioner was to act
as an independent monitoring agency of the work, which was allotted to
NEC. The allegation against the petitioner was that the Sub-Contractor of
NEC namely, Paramount Communications Ltd. was monitored by the
petitioner, whereas, the petition has replied to the Show Cause Notice stating
therein that none of the work of the Paramount Communications Ltd. was
verified by the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that under
almost similar circumstances, the Court in the case of Manu Electricals Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.5 has held that on account of period of
debarment having been expired, there would be no disability in any manner
from participating in future tenders. Therefore, the Court may not require
rendering the findings on merits.
10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
11. Though, there seems to be some substance in the submissions made
(2016) 6 AIR Bom R 679
W.P. (C) 1484/2021 dated 05.02.2021S
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:00:57
KUMAR KAURAV
by the petitioner, however, no final adjudication with respect to the
impugned communication needs to be undertaken as the period of
debarment has already elapsed. The respondent itself submits that the same
shall not be an impediment or any disability of the petitioner to participate in
future tenders.
12. Needless to state that the impugned order shall not be an impediment
for any other future tender where the petitioner intends to participate in any
other organisation etc.
13. In view thereof, and placing the said submissions on record, the
instant petition stands disposed of along with all pending applications.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2026
Nc/mj
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:21.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
14:00:57
KUMAR KAURAV
