HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 3918 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. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner has a business of supplying materials used for electricity transmission. Respondent No.2 had invited a tender, in which the petitioner had participated. After his bid was found responsive, Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 26.12.2022 and thereafter respondent No.2 on the basis of a blacklisting order issued by respondent No.5, without even issuing notice and giving chance of opportunity, had cancelled the tender and blacklisted the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2024. The same was assailed by means of a writ petition being Writ-C No.10754 of 2024 before this Court. This Court had set aside the same vide order dated 13.12.2024. The relevant portion of the said order is delineated herein- below:- "In view of the aforesaid, we quash the impugned orders dated 14.11.2024 and 29.11.2024, however, with the caveat that it shall be open for the concerned opposite party to issue a notice for black listing and/or cancellation of letter of intent mentioning therein the allegations against the petitioner and the material on which it is based and providing requisite material to the petitioner. Reasonable opportunity of at least 15 days would be given to the petitioner to respond to the same Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yugal Kishor Tripathi, Lalta Prasad Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Neerav Chitravanshi, Nishant Shukla M/S Surya Roshni Limited Thru. Authorised Representative Arbind Aggarwal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tourism Office Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) and once the response is received or if it is not received within the stipulated period, in either eventuality, a considered decision shall be taken as per law and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Consequences shall follow accordingly. " 3. After that, respondent No.2 issued a fresh notice to the petitioner on 26.12.2024 and asked the petitioner to submit his reply. However, the petitioner did not file the reply and sought time stating that the earlier blacklisting order passed by respondent No.5 has already been assailed and the same was pending before the Allahabad High Court. Without waiting for the order of the High Court, respondent No.3 again passed an order dated 25.01.2025, by which the petitioner was blacklisted and the earnest money deposited by him was forfeited. This has been assailed by means of the instant writ petition. 4. Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Yugal Kishor Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the basis on which the blacklisting was done, was a blacklisting order of respondent No.5, which was assailed before the Allahabad High Court and the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 07.02.2025 passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 7 and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2023, issued by the Respondent No.3. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of an ad interim mandamus commanding the respondent authority not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner. c) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble WRIC No. 3918 of 2025 2 Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. It is patently clear from the facts that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated 23.05.2023. 4. In fact it is also to be noted that this order was never supplied to the petitioner and it is only in the month of December, 2024 when the matter came up before the Court then this order was supplied to the petitioner. 5. In light of the same, the impugned order is quashed and set- aside. The liberty is granted to the respondents to issue a proper fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, if they deem fit with regard to the black listing i.e. proposed by the respondents. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of." 5. He further submits that respondent No.5 himself has withdrawn the blacklisting order vide order dated 09.06.2025. He further submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of a blacklisting order issued by respondent No.5, which no longer exists and hence, the blacklisting order issued against the petitioner cannot stand. 6. In light of the same, the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh and reasoned order in accordance with law. 7. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and all grounds shall be kept open for all the parties. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. November 13, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 3918 of 2025 3 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench