Madhya Pradesh High Court
Archon Powerinfra Pvt. Ltd. Through Its ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 WP-11453-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 11453 of 2025
(ARCHON POWERINFRA PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR KAPIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 01-04-2025
Shri R.S. Chhabra - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Aman
Arora- learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard on question of admission and interim relief.
Petition is admitted for hearing.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - learned Government Advocate accepts notice
on behalf of respondents, therefore, no separate notice is required.
In this petition, petitioner has challenged the communication dated
31/01/2025 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been
black listed by respondent No.3. till 04/09/2033 on the ground that the
subject tender has been obtained by the petitioner by submitting false and
forged documents.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is third
round of litigation. It is submitted that the tender awarded in favour of the
petitioner was terminated on 07/06/2024 by respondent No.4 on account of
submission of alleged forged documents containing to financial eligibility of
the company alongwith tender documents. Thereafter, respondent No.3,
issued show cause notice dated 12/06/2024 calling the petitioner to disclosed
of as to why on account of submission of forged documents, company of the
2 WP-11453-2025
petitioner may not be blacklisted from the list of contractors. Earlier the
petitioner company was already black listed on 24/06/2024 for indefinite
period for the same work. It is settled position that blacklisting order cannot
be issued for indefinite period. Inspite of that again a fresh blacklisting order
impugned has been issued against the petitioner. In earlier two round of
litigation, blacklisting order was set aside and the writ petitions were
allowed. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that various
conditions have been imposed in the blacklisting order, which could not have
been imposed, therefore, blacklisting order dated 31/03/2025 is extremely
disproportionate and arbitrary. In support of his contentions, learned Senior
Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the
case of Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kolkata Municipal
Corporation & Ors. , 2024 Online SC 1896 and order passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shanti Construction Vs.
Avantika Gas Ltd. 2022 (1) MPLJ 628.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer on
the ground that efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner,
therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Moreover, the petitioner had
submitted alleged forged documents alongwith tender documents, therefore,
order impugned for blacklisting is just and proper.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Objection with regard to statutory alternative remedy has already been
overruled by this Court in earlier round of litigation in respect of the same
petitioner, therefore, availability of alternative remedy is not a bar in case
3 WP-11453-2025
challenge is to be made on the ground that the blacklisting order is
disproportionate and in violation of natural justice, hence, plea of alternative
remedy is rejected.
On perusal of impugned order dated 31/01/2025, same appears to be
extremely disproportionate. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that prima-facie case exist in
favour of the petitioner and if the impugned order dated 31/01/2025 is not
stayed during pendency of the writ petition, then petitioner would suffer
irreparably and it is well settled law that the order of blacklisting is draconion
in nature and known as civil death of a Company.
Accordingly, it is directed that effect and operation of blacklisting
order dated 31/01/2025 shall remain stayed pending adjudication of the
present writ petition.
Reply be filed within four weeks.
List after four weeks.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
