HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 5146 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by respondent no.5/ Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Pilibhit, District Pilibhit, by which he has cancelled the registration of the petitioner's proprietorship firm with PWD Department for carrying out contractual work of maintenance of roads. 3. The said registration of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner is the proprietor of the firm, namely, Vinayak Construction (sole Proprietor Sri Ankit Mishra) and the petitioner is also registered in the Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh and being an Advocate he cannot be registered as Contractor for the Department. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as it has been passed without giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that the finding that petitioner is registered as an Advocate is perverse and against the record, inasmuch as the registration certificate of the petitioner discloses that the registration of the petitioner is provisional and it was valid for two years and the registration certificate of the petitioner has lapsed in the year 2020, therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain in law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there is no illegality in the impugned order, inasmuch as the respondent no.5 while Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Vinayak Construction .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) passing the order, relied upon the letter dated 18.09.2024 issued by Office Superintendent, Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh and therefore, the petitioner has failed to made out any case. 6. Be that as it may, from the impugned order it appears that the registration of petitioner's firm has been cancelled without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has enclosed the certificate issued by the Bar Council, copy of which is appearing on page no.60, which reveals that the registration of the petitioner was temporary and was valid for two years. The certificate was issued on 30.09.2018, and therefore, it was valid till 29.09.2020. Therefore, it transpires that as on today, the registration of the petitioner with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is not valid and thus, the ground on which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled appears not to be sustainable in law. 7. In such view of fact, the writ petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by respondent no.5/ Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Pilibhit, District Pilibhit is set aside with liberty to the respondent no.5 to pass a fresh order after giving due notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. October 15, 2025 Virendra WRIC No. 5146 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad