HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32008 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.08.2025 whereby the petitioner has been debarred for a period of six months from carrying out any further work. 3. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is punitive in nature, and as such, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner before passing the same. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been given an opportunity of hearing, he would have demonstrated that the charges levelled against the petitioner are incorrect and not supported by any cogent material. 4. Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6, has contended that in the instant case, the petitioner has not completed the work, and in view of the said fact, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that any notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. 6. Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vivek Prasad Mathur M/S M.I. Construction .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) though has tried to demonstrate that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing, the same could not be substantiated from the material available on record. 7. In such view of the fact, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.08.2025, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside, with liberty to respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh order after affording due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. October 13, 2025 Gaurav WRIC No. 32008 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad