Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3504-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10706 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Adycon Concrete Llp A Limited Liability Partnership Thru. Partner Yash Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra,Puneet Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nishant Shukla Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. On 12.12.2024, we passed the following order:- "1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4. 2. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is firstly that the order is cryptic one which does not take into consideration the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice. Secondly, material, which was not referred in the show cause notice, has been taken into consideration without confronting with the petitioner with the same. Thirdly, the opposite parties themselves proposed to have a report from an IIT which in this case was IIIT, Allahabad and according to the petitioner, possibly the report is in favour of the petitioner and in spite of it, the impugned order of black listing has been passed. Fourthly, as per petitioner's information the evaluation by some other IIT or IIIT was proposed which has not fructified as yet, yet in undue haste on the dictates of the State Government the impugned order of black listing has been passed. 3. Let learned counsel for the Bridge Corporation Limited file an afÏdavit bringing on record the material which has been considered by the Corporation for black listing the petitioner, especially, the report dated 31.03.2024, if any, and also mention in the afÏdavit as to whether there is any report of any IIT or IIIT in respect of the matter which is the subject matter of black listing and whether any other report or evaluation was sought from any other agency which has not been received as yet, as alleged. 4. List in the 2nd week of January, 2025 as fresh." 2. On 08.01.2025, again we passed the following order:- "1. As prayed by Sri Nishant Shukla, counsel for the opposite parties, put up on 16.01.1025, as fresh, in terms of the earlier order. 2. If any report has been filed by the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee in the interregnum, the same should also be brought on record along with the counter afÏdavit. " 3. The required afÏdavit has been filed annexing therewith the reports subsequent to the impugned order of blacklisting which have not been taken into consideration. 4. The subsequent reports as claimed by the petitioner's counsel are not adverse to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly submits that a fresh decision would be taken as the subsequent reports have not been taken into consideration. Other reports were sought from IIT, which have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. 6. In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, we quash the impugned order of blacklisting, however, with liberty to the opposite parties to proceed against the petitioner afresh and take such decision as may be required in law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench