HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1890 of 2024 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated February 5, 2024, whereby the petitioner’s firm was blacklisted on the ground that the petitioner had filed an affidavit declaring that the petitioner’s firm had never been blacklisted. This affidavit was found to be untrue by the respondents, as the date of the affidavit was August 26, 2023, whereas the High Court had removed the debarment/blacklisting of the petitioner’s firm and held it to be illegal on August 29, 2023. 2. The case made out by the petitioner is that the particular affidavit had been wrongly uploaded in the tender bid and another affidavit dated December 16, 2023, was filed by the petitioner on the same day along with the wrong affidavit. 3. In a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, the Courts have categorically held that blacklisting is a draconian provision that leads to deprivation of the right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (see Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager Western Telecom Project BSNL reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others reported in MANU/SC/0849/2024, Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yashovardhan Swarup, Bhavya Upadhyay, Desh Deepak Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ravi Anand .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange And Rural Water Supply Deptt. U.P.Govt.Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 and V-Marc India Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2025 : AHC : 12685-DB) 4. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the bid was invited on December 6, 2023 and on that date, the petitioner was clearly not blacklisted and the blacklisting order that had been passed against it had been quashed and set aside by the High Court. 5. In light of the same, we find that the authorities acted on an extremely technical reason to blacklist the petitioner. Such blacklisting is not called for and is an action that is too harsh and, accordingly, is not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. 6. In light of the above findings, the impugned order dated February 5, 2024 is quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. October 27, 2025 cks/- WRIC No. 1890 of 2024 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench