[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
7Th February vs Nagar Palika Parishad on 17 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1019-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 92 OF 2026
17TH FEBRUARY, 2026
M/s Zero Waste Incorporation ...... Petitioner
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad ...... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned
counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1) Heard Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for
the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad. With their consent
the present writ petition is being disposed of at this stage
itself without inviting a formal counter-affidavit.
2) The petitioner has assailed an order dated
27.01.2026 issued by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika
Parishad, Barhahat, Uttarkashi, which states that the
contract of the petitioner firm in respect of the removal,
processing and management of solid waste within the limits
of Nagar Palika Parishad has come to end on 31.03.2025,
and despite several notices, the petitioner has failed to
2026:UHC:1019-DB
remove the garbage dumped at Tambakhani. Consequently,
the Nagar Palika held an emergency meeting on
13.01.2026, and in pursuance of the decisions taken in the
said meeting, the petitioner was issued notice on
14.01.2026 directing it to ensure removal of the garbage by
20th January, 2026. However, the petitioner failed to take
any action. The petitioner firm was issued another notice on
21.01.2026 but again the petitioner firm did not remedy the
situation. Consequently, the Nagar Palika again convened a
meeting on 21.01.2026, and it resolved to impose penalty
on the petitioner firm for violating the terms and conditions
of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016, and to take
steps for removal of the garbage from the amount deposited
by the petitioner firm as security, and in case any additional
liability is incurred in that regard to recover the same as
arrears of land revenue from the petitioner firm.
3) The communication mentions that apart from the
above decision the Nagar Palika also resolved to debar the
petitioner firm from participating in any tender in future
during the tenure of the present Board.
4) The petitioner has also assailed the e-tender
notice dated 28.01.2026 issued by Nagar Palika Parishad
inviting fresh tenders for the same work.
2026:UHC:1019-DB
5) After making submissions at some length, Mr.
B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the
Bar that he is confining the challenge to the latter part of
the order dated 27.01.2026 by which the petitioner firm has
been debarred from participating in any contract in future till
the life time of the present Board. He submits that the said
part of the order entails serious civil consequences,
inasmuch as the petitioner firm would stand debarred from
participating in any tender in future issued by other entities
also.
6) Further contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that although the petitioner firm does not
dispute that it could not fulfill its obligation under the
contract but, at the same time, the petitioner firm has a
valid explanation for not been able to discharge its
obligations. He submits that certain obligations were also
required to be fulfilled by Nagar Palika Parishad under the
Solid Waste Management Rules 2016, which it had failed to
fulfill. The same has also added to the reason for failure on
part of the petitioner to discharge its obligation. He submits
that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner firm
requiring it to show cause with regard to the action of
debarment, therefore, the petitioner firm could not submit
any explanation and this has resulted in serious prejudice to
the petitioner firm.
2026:UHC:1019-DB
7) Learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Palika
Parishad has invited our attention towards a notice dated
17.01.2026 (Annexure-7) in submitting that while issuing
the said notice the petitioner firm was put to caution that in
case it does not fulfill its obligations under the contract and
removes the garbage dumped at the site stated above, it
would also result in blacklisting of the firm.
8) We have perused the said notice and we find that
although it mentions that in case of failure on part of the
petitioner firm in discharging its obligations under the
contract it would be blacklisted but, as stated above, it was
only a notice cautioning it of the action which might follow in
case the violation continues. However, the said notice does
not seek any explanation from the petitioner firm with
regard to any proposed action for blacklisting of the firm.
Such a notice, in our considered opinion, does not fulfill the
requirement of a show-cause notice, the very object of
which is to put the person to notice about the proposed
action and to enable the party to submit its defence in
response thereto.
9) A party under a contract may have not fulfilled its
obligation resulting in cancellation of the contract /
agreement but there could be mitigating factors, which if
considered, may not necessarily result in blacklisting. Since
2026:UHC:1019-DB
in the instant case, the order of blacklisting has been passed
without any proper show-cause notice, therefore, we are of
the opinion that the latter part of the order cannot be
sustained and is, accordingly, quashed. To the aforesaid
extent, the writ petition stands allowed. We, however,
clarify that the quashment of the latter part of the impugned
order would not entitle the petitioner firm to claim any right
to participate in pursuance of the tender notice dated
28.01.2026, which was for the same work, and for which the
last date for filing of tender has expired on 09.02.2026.
However, for future tenders, the benefit of the instant order
would certainly be available to the petitioner until there is no
fresh order against it in respect of blacklisting.
10) The respondent Nagar Palika Parishad will have
liberty to issue fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner
firm seeking its explanation and thereafter pass a fresh
order strictly in accordance with law.
11) Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
TH
Dt: 17 FEBRUARY, 2026
Negi
HIMANS
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a
af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5
HU NEGI
757, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC
51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C
18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI
Date: 2026.02.18 10:46:44 +05'30'
