SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 27 WPMS No.3390 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent no.4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office memorandum dated 19.09.2025 bearing paper No. 1224/ MukhiyalayaAnu./ThekedarPanjikaran/ 573 issued by respondent no.2 by means of which the petitioner has been blacklisted/debarred from participating in any tender of the department for a period of 2 years. (Annexure No.3) ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith restore the petitioner’s status as an enlisted contractor and to treat the petitioner as fully eligible to participate in all present and future tenders of the Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam. iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contractor registered with Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam, Dehradun. He had filed a litigation in the commercial court at Dehradun, but has been blacklisted for that reason by the impugned order dated 09.09.2025. It is argued that, in fact, a person may not be penalised for approaching the court of law. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that there were multiple factors, which were considered by the department before blacklisting the petitioner. The Court invited the attention of learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the impugned order reflects that one of the considerations for passing the impugned order was that the petitioner unnecessarily approached the court of law. After instructions, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner was already served with a notice, which he never replied. Therefore, the impugned order was passed. But, he submits that the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall withdraw the impugned order dated 09.09.2025, which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, within 24 hours, but he seeks liberty to the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to issue fresh notices to the petitioner, and take action according to law. He also submits that the petitioner may be directed to respond to the notice that shall be given to him by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case a notice is received, it shall be properly replied, within stipulated time by the petitioner. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall recall the impugned Office Memorandum dated 09.09.2025 within 24 hours, and shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, thereafter. The petitioner shall further response to the notice within the stipulated time. In view of the statement given by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, nothing survives in this writ petition. It stands disposed of, accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani J.) 05.12.2025 RV