M/S PREM BIOGAS AGENCY AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIC/28087/2018 · 2025-07-07
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38566 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38566 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107765-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28087 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Prem Biogas Agency And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Saxena (Senior Adv.),Ankur Jaiswal,Saurabh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Tiwari,C.S.C.,Vivek Verma Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. This petition is filed for quashing the order dated 3.7.2018, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted and further for releasing the entire sum of money due to the petitioner as per the work done and to permit him to complete the remaining work within a short period.
2. It appears that the petitioner had submitted a tender pursuant to an advertisement of the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi (respondent No.2) and the bid of the petitioner being lowest, a contract dated 21.11.2016 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 for construction of Community Toilet Complexes (CTC) on 25 pre-designated places and the construction was to be completed within a period of six months, which time could be extended for reasons which could not be attributed to the petitioner. Another agreement was entered into on the same day i.e. 21.11.2016 for maintenance of the CTCs for a period of thirty years. It is stated that there were delays but in due course of time, the petitioner was able to achieve about 95% construction on 18 of pre-designated sites while 7 sites were never handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has sought to put the blame for the delay on the respondent no. 2. It is stated that by the impugned order dated 3.7.2018, while stopping the entire payments due to the petitioner, it was blacklisted and the security deposit too was forfeited. It is stated that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 3.7.2018, neither any show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner.
3. Time was granted to the respondents, who are represented by their Advocates to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit is on record. The matter has been taken up today out of turn on a mention being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but no one has appeared for the respondents, though it is stated by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that notice has been duly served
on him.
4. A perusal of the impugned order of 3.7.2018 reflects that repeated notices were given to the petitioner for completion of the work with the final notice being given on 4.6.2018, but the petitioner failed to comply with the notices and the work of CTC was not completed; it was found after inspection that only six toilets were completed by the petitioner and remaining twelve toilets were incomplete. It was further mentioned that the period of bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner expired on 5.5.2018 and the petitioner was called upon to renew the same, but the same was never done. It was thus observed that in compliance of the order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 28.6.2018, the security amount submitted by the petitioner was forfeited and the name of the petitioner's firm was placed on the blacklist. It was further mentioned in the order that within three days of receipt of that letter, the petitioner should be present for verification of the work done by him, failing which the department would at its level record measurements, and for getting the work done, further steps would be initiated.
5. A copy of the final notice dated 4.6.2018 has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same reflects that it put the petitioner to notice that the incomplete constructions should be completed by 24.6.2018, failing which the contract would be cancelled and further legal proceedings would be taken as per rules.
6. It is evident that no show cause notice for blacklisting the petitioner was ever made prior to the impugned order of 3.7.2018. Therefore, in so far as order impugned dated 3.7.2018 blacklists the petitioner, the same is quashed to that extent.
7. This petition is, accordingly, allowed in part.
Order Date :- 8.7.2025 sfa/ Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad