HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11763 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi and Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 05.11.2022, we find that blacklisting of the petitioner's firm has been done without any show cause notice having been given to the petitioner. 3. Furthermore, we find that the blacklisting is for undefined period and appears to be perpetuity. Such an order is obviously not sustainable. The same is covered by judgment of this Bench in Writ-C No. 11037 of 2024, M/S Hi Tech Pipe Limited Versus State of U.P. and others. The relevant paragraphs No. 6 & 7 of the said judgement is delineated herein-below:- "6. This Court in A.K. Construction Company v. Union of India and Others (Writ-C No.20223 of 2024 decided on July 19, 2024), after examining the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Kulja Industries Limited -v- Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8944 of 2013), has held as follows: 14. Upon a perusal of the relevant paragraphs above, it is evident that the judgement brings forward several critical principles concerning the judicial scrutiny of decisions to blacklist contractors by governmental or public authorities. First, the inherent power to blacklist a contractor is vested in the entity awarding the contract, typically the State or its instrumentalities. This authority does not necessarily require explicit statutory authorisation but must conform to fairness and reasonableness. It is also to be noted that any governmental or public authority's decision to blacklist a contractor is open to judicial review, ensuring adherence to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Puneet Chandra M/S Simplex Inf. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Rep. Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee .....Petitioner(s) U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman And Another .....Respondent(s) natural justice principles, particularly audi alteram partem and the doctrine of proportionality. This means courts can examine such decisions to ensure they are just and balanced. Further, before blacklisting a contractor, the entity must provide a fair hearing, allowing the contractor to present their case and defend against the allegations or reasons for blacklisting. The decision to blacklist must also be reasonable, fair, and proportionate to the gravity of the alleged offence or breach, avoiding arbitrariness or discrimination. Additionally, actions by State authorities, including blacklisting decisions, must pass the reasonableness test under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures equality before the law and prevents arbitrary State actions. Furthermore, precedents and legal standards established in prior judicial decisions, such as Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. -v- State of W.B., reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 and subsequent cases like Radha krishna Agarwal and Ors. -v- State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1977) 3 SCC 457, shed light on the legal framework guiding the judicial review of blacklisting decisions. These principles collectively aim to ensure that the power to blacklist is exercised judiciously, upholding fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality while safeguarding contractors' rights to a fair hearing and defense. 7. The entire concept of blacklisting is required to be seen in a holistic manner and what has to be appreciated that an order of blacklisting/debarment of a particular firm is in the nature of punishment which carries with civil consequences for a firm. An order of blacklisting is accordingly required to be passed taking into consideration all aspects and should not be passed in a casual and cavalier manner as the same has an impact on the person for which such blacklisting is done." 4. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 05.11.2022 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authorities to grant an opportunity of filing a reply and thereafter hearing to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. December 9, 2025 Satish WRIC No. 11763 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench