M/S AADISIDDHI BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/32302/2024 · 2025-01-08
Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 100382 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 100382 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4221-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32302 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Aadisiddhi Business Solutions Pvt Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Shahi,Rajendra Singh Chauhan,Umesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.9.2024 (Ax.5) passed by the respondent no.3 blacklisting the petitioner in the department for five years and forfeited the security amount further issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the existing contract."
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7.9.2024 only to the extent that it blacklists the petitioner. His contention is that blacklisting amounts to civil death of the petitioner as he has been debarred for a period of five years from participating in the contracts of the department.
4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given show cause notice or not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order of blacklisting. Thus, the
consideration of the aspect of blacklisting is factual question which involves looking into disputed question of fact as well as
consideration of evidence produced by parties.
5. In such view of the matter, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be an appropriate remedy. It is for the petitioner to seek such alternative remedy including any statutory/contractual remedy that may be available to him for
consideration of the same.
6. Under the circumstances, this Court declines to interfere in the matter leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy that may be advised.
7. This petition is, therefore, disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.1.2025 sfa/ Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad