HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10248 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari after summoning the records in original and thereby quashing quashing the order impugned order dated 16.9.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to 5 to allow the petitioner to participate in furture tenders floated by respondent no.2 in the interest of justice." We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of State - respondents and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, who appears on behalf of LDA. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner no.2 is proprietor of petitioner no.1 Firm which is duly registered under the provisions of GST Act since year 2018. The Firm is also empanelled as contractor in the office of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Jauhari, Ambuj Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra M/S Aaradhya And Adhyatm Associates Thru.Proprietor Vishwa Deepak Dwivedi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Urban Planning U.P. Govt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent no.2 for Electrical contracts and it has executed several contracts awarded by respondent no.2 successfully. The respondents no.2 and 3 floated a tender for work of 'C.G. City Yojana Main Fine Dine Street ke Vyavsaik Bhukhando ke Vidyutikaran ka karya' with certain terms of eligibility. The petitioner fulfilling such eligibility terms had submitted his tender. He went for darshan of Mata Vaishno Devi in Katra and deputed his staff to submit the application form on the online portal but under the conspiracy staff of petitioner no.1 submitted the application form and in support of financial capacity annexed a Bank Certificate issued by the Bank of Baroda which had never been obtained by the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 came to know about it only when he received notice from the LDA saying that on verification the certificates have been declared as forged by the Bank of Baroda and the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of six months and in the show cause that was issued to him copy which has been filed as Annexure 6, the respondents while blacklisting the petitioner for a period of six months also issued show cause to him as to why the firm's proprietor may not be implicated in cirminal case of forgery by lodging FIR against him. It is evident from a perusal of the notice dated 24.4.2025 that it did not mention any action regarding blacklisting the petitioner indefinitely and debarring him from participating in the notices inviting tenders by the LDA. The petitioner submitted his reply. His reply was not considered and by order impugned the respondents have blacklisted the firm of petitioner no.1 for all time to come. We have gone through the show cause notice dated 24.4.2025 and we find that it does not indicate that it was proposing that LDA was proposing to debar the Firm indefinitely in all future notice inviting tenders. The order dated 16.9.2025 is, therefore, set aside in view of the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court in Daffodil WRIC No. 10248 of 2025 2 Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. State of U.P. 2020 Vol 18 SCC 550 leaving it open for the LDA to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action after giving the opportunity of hearing to him. Writ petition is allowed to this extent. October 17, 2025 mks WRIC No. 10248 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench