M/S SHUBHAM RICE MILL THRU. PROPRIETOR RAVEENDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/8443/2025 · 2025-10-07
Prashant Kumar, Shekhar B Saraf
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161100 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161100 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8443 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 writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated June 19, 2025 wherein the petitioner-firm has been blacklisted for a period of five years.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that neither was the show cause notice received by the petitioner-firm nor was any opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner could not file any reply to the show cause notice because of non-receipt of the show cause notice.
4. Time had been granted to the respondents-authorities to take instructions in the matter and inform this Court whether the show cause notice had been served upon the petitioner. Till date, no conclusive proof has been received that the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner.
5. In light of the above, we are of the view that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has been blacklisted without having been given an opportunity to be heard. Since the principle of audi alteram partem has not been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jagdambika Prasad Tripathi, Indra Jeet Yadav, Vishwanath Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Shubham Rice Mill Thru. Proprietor Raveendra Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
followed, we are not convinced with the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside, with a direction to the respondent-authority concerned to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter takes steps in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. October 7, 2025 cks/- WRIC No. 8443 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench