HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 8788 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abhinav Gaur and Shri Ayam Pall and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 5.3.2025 passed by respondent No. 3, Chief Engineer (Electrification and Distribution), Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of one year. 3. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a notice dated 24.6.2024 was issued by the respondents indicating that the poles installed by the petitioner were substandard. However, no show cause notice was given in respect of such allegations, and the show cause contained in this notice was confined only to the allegation that the petitioner did not deposit the old/condemned LED drivers in the Nagar Nigam store. 4. It is submitted that on the pointing out of the aforesaid irregularities by notice dated 26.4.2024, the petitioner by letter dated 4.7.2024 fairly conceded that due to inadvertence, 69 substandard poles had been installed, and the petitioner undertook to replace the same within a period of two and a half months. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter replaced the substandard poles by installing poles as per the prescribed standard norms in the tender. The petitioner acted fairly and removed the 69 substandard poles without delay on his own, and therefore the Nagar Nigam did not suffer any loss by the said installation. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Gaur, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Singh M/S Neev Energy Llp, .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Despite this, a show cause notice dated 24.6.2024 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why a penalty of Rs. 26,56,000/- should not be imposed for installing substandard poles causing huge loss to the Nagar Nigam and why the petitioner should not be blacklisted for ten years. 7. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply by letter dated 9.8.2024, annexed at page 78 of the writ petition, wherein it was pointed out that the petitioner had acknowledged his mistake and had replaced all the substandard poles, and as such, there was no cause for the respondents to initiate any proceedings. 8. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without considering the reply of the petitioner filed at page 78 of the writ petition. In such view of the matter, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is an admitted position that the petitioner had installed substandard poles, and once the fact is admitted, this Court may refrain from interfering with the impugned order, even for non-consideration of the petitioner’s reply. 10. Be that as it may, the notice dated 24.6.2024 reveals that though it has been stated therein that the petitioner installed substandard poles, the show cause was confined only to the charge that he did not deposit the old/condemned LED drivers, which is reproduced below: "अतः उक्त के सम्बन्ध में आपको कारण बताओं नोिटस दी जाती है िक आप अपना िलिखत स्पष्टीकरण 03 िदवस के भीतर अधोहस्ताक्षरी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें िक िकन पिरिस्थितयों में आपकी फमोर्ं द्वारा पुराने / कण्डम एलईडी ड्राइवसर् नगर िनगम स्टोर में जमा नहीं कराये गये हैं। संतोषजनक उत्तर न प्राप्त होने की दशा में आपकी फमोर्ं के िवरुद्ध अनुबन्ध की शतोर्ं के अनुसार कायर्वाही करते हुए, आपकी फमोर् की जमानत की धनरािश जब्त करते हुए, आपकी फमार् को काली सूची में डाल िदया जाएगा, िजसकी सम्पूणर् िजम्मेदारी आपकी फमर् की होगी। िनधार्िरत समय का िवशेष ध्यान रखा जाए। िनधार्िरत समय व्यतीत होने के उपरान्त आपकी फमोर्ं के िकसी भी प्रत्यावेदन पर िवचार नहीं िकया जाएगा।" 11. It appears that the petitioner thereafter acknowledged his mistake in his letter dated 4.7.2024 regarding installation of substandard poles, and subsequently replaced them with poles as per the specifications in the tender notice. The petitioner also submitted a detailed reply in his objection dated 9.8.2024 (at page 78 of the writ petition), which was received in the office of the respondents on 16.8.2024. 12. We have perused the impugned order and find that the reply of WRIC No. 8788 of 2025 2 the petitioner has not been considered by the competent authority while passing the order dated 5.3.2025. In such view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file a detailed reply along with the earlier reply before respondent No. 2 against the order dated 4.5.2025, pointing out the infirmities in the impugned order, within a period of one month from today. On presentation of the aforesaid representation/objection of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by supplying all the materials on which the respondents seek to rely against him, within a further period of one month from the date he receives the representation of the petitioner. 13. The impugned order dated 5.3.2025 passed by respondent No. 3, Chief Engineer (Electrification and Distribution), Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, shall abide by the final order so passed on the representation of the petitioner. September 24, 2025 Sumaira WRIC No. 8788 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad