Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 156484 (ALL)

M/S ASIF CONTRACTOR THRU. PROPRIETOR,MOHD.ASIF AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF MINORITY WELFARE AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/7628/2025 · 2025-10-09

Prashant Kumar, Shekhar B Saraf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 7628 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated November 18, 2024, wherein respondent No. 2 has passed an order terminating the contract of the petitioner, profiting the earnest money deposited by the petitioner and blacklisting for an indefinite period from performing any work for respondent Nos. 2. 3. Inspite of the service, none has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The State is represented. 4. In a catena of judgments, it has been held that the provision of blacklisting is a draconian provision that impacts the fundamental rights of a person from carrying on his business and is, accordingly, a provision that limits the future prospects and business prospects of the person. Any decision that has to be taken keeping in mind Articles 19 of the Constitution of India. In a catena of judgements of the Supreme Court, it has been held that indefinite period of blacklisting cannot be countenanced by the Courts. 5. Furthermore, as is clear from the order, no opportunity of hearing was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajmal Khan, Ambrish Kumar Dubey, Juned Khan, Parvez Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Asif Contractor Thru. Proprietor,Mohd.Asif And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Minority Welfare And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) granted to the petitioner and the same clearly amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In light of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order as far as it relates to the blacklisting is quashed and set aside. 7. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to give a proper notice to the petitioner, grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law on the aspect of the blacklisting. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. October 9, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 7628 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench