Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112932-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20854 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Bsn Infrastructure Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1.Heard Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short "NOIDA"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned blacklisting order dated 09.06.2025 issued by respondent no.2 and for a direction to respondent no.2 to immediately remove the petitioner's name from any blacklist and restore its eligibility to participate in all future tenders. 3. The record in question reflects that the petitioner is a contractor firm that engages with the Health and Civil Division of respondent no.2-NOIDA. The respondent no.2 floated a tender for public health infrastructure work in NOIDA. The petitioner had also submitted its bid in full compliance with tender conditions along with requisite Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). On 15.05.2025, the petitioner's bid was declared as lowest and on 21.05.2025 the respondent no.2 issued an acceptance letter. It is contended that unfortunately due to sudden and unforeseen circumstances including severe health emergency and financial crisis beyond petitioner's control, the petitioner could not execute the proposed work. The petitioner had also duly informed the same to the concerned officials even before 29.05.2025. It is alleged that without issuing any show cause notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, the respondent no.2 issued a blacklisting order dated 09.06.2025 debarring the petitioner from future tenders. Upon receiving the blacklisting order, the petitioner had also submitted representation dated 10.06.2025 but no decision has been taken as yet. It is contended that impugned blacklisting order is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental principles of law and as such this Court may come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and the same is hit by the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was accorded to the petitioner while passing the impugned order. He has placed reliance on judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and another, (1975) 1 SCC 70 and UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and another, (2021) 2 SCC 551 wherein the Court has held that before blacklisting an opportunity is to be accorded. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for NOIDA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and stated that there was an exigency. Only in this backdrop, the Authority has invited/ floated the tender/ work order. As the petitioner had submitted valid offer, the work order was assigned to the petitioner. Due to ill health, since very beginning the petitioner was not inclined to carry out the work in lieu of work order, as such entire cleaning of drainage was hampered. On account of rainy season, it was very important to complete the assigned work in time. Duty is also cast upon the Authority to ensure cleanliness of drainage, otherwise there was eminent danger of flood. As such it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law and calls for no interference. 6. Heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. We have occasion to peruse the impugned order and find that the said order has been passed straightaway without according any opportunity to the petitioner. Recently, a three Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others, 2024 INSC 589 has held as under :- "22. Blacklisting has always been viewed by this Court as a drastic remedy and the orders passed have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. In Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs State of West Bengal & Anr. (1975) 1 SCC 70, this Court observed that "20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction...." 23. In Mr. B.S.N. Joshi (supra), this Court held that "41. ... When a contractor is blacklisted by a department he is debarred from obtaining a contract, but in terms of the notice inviting tender when a tenderer is declared to be a defaulter, he may not get any contract at all. It may have to wind up its business. The same would, thus, have a disastrous effect on him. Whether a person defaults in making payment or not would depend upon the context in which the allegations are made as also the relevant statute operating in the field. When a demand is made, if the person concerned raises a bona fide dispute in regard to the claim, so long as the dispute is not resolved, he may not be declared to be defaulter." (Emphasis supplied) 24. This Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra) after setting out the legal position governing blacklisting/debarment in USA and UK held that: "25. Suffice it to say that "debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the "debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. 26. In the case at hand according to the respondent BSNL, the appellant had fraudulently withdrawn a huge amount of money which was not due to it in collusion and conspiracy with the officials of the respondent Corporation. Even so permanent debarment from future contracts for all times to come may sound too harsh and heavy a punishment to be considered reasonable especially when (a) the appellant is supplying bulk of its manufactured products to the respondent BSNL, and (b) the excess amount received by it has already been paid back." 26. In other words, where the case is of an ordinary breach of contract and the explanation offered by the person concerned raises a bona fide dispute, blacklisting/debarment as a penalty ought not to be resorted to. Debarring a person albeit for a certain number of years tantamounts to civil death inasmuch as the said person is commercially ostracized resulting in serious consequences for the person and those who are employed by him." 8. In view of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions including the matters of Erusian Equipment's case (supra), UMC Technologies's case (supra) and The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the law is well settled that before blacklisting an opportunity has to be accorded to the person, who is being blacklisted and as such, the impugned order is hit by the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is relegated to the concerned authority to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad