HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 23169 of 2020 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1607, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that a blacklisting order is required to be for a finite period and any order that blacklists a company for an indefinite period is void ab initio. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement is delineated herein-below:- "14. Although, State of U.P. has argued that the impugned order requiring that no procurement ought to be made from Daffodills, is neither a blacklisting nor a debarring order, in our opinion, in fact and in reality, that order is nothing but an order or a directive, debarring and preventing the State of U.P. from local purchase of medicines from Daffodills for an indefinite duration. Unlike a "normal" blacklisting order which has a finite life span (of three or maximum five years), the indefinite directive (which appears to be co-terminus with the lifetime of the criminal case) is facially far more disproportionate than a blacklisting order. Even as on date, it is not clear whether formal charges have been framed against the accused i.e. Surender Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Mehrotra, Shreya Srivastava, Tushar Mittal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Lalta Prasad Misra, Rishabh Kapoor Pushpa Sales Pvt.Ltd.Lucknow Thru Authrized Representative .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Medicl Edu. Lko. And Ors. .....Respondent(s) Chaudhary. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 19. Normally, this court would have quashed the Government of U.P.'s decision, and left it to grant a hearing to Daffodils, before taking any action. However, given that the impugned order of debarring ( i.e. directive not to procure locally from Daffodills) was made over 4 years and 3 months ago, this court is of the opinion that it would be in the overall interest of justice that appropriate relief is granted. Accordingly, the said order of the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. directing all concerned departments to desist from resorting to local purchase from the appellant is hereby quashed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs." 3. The indubitable fact before us is that the petitioner was blacklisted on August 21, 2020, more than five years ago. 4. In light of the same, we see no reason to allow this blacklisting to continue. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed and set aside. 5. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the blacklisting and we simply hold that since a period of five years has gone by, the blacklisting order on the petitioner should come to an end. The petitioner shall be allowed to participate in future tenders in accordance with law. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. October 15, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 23169 of 2020 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench