HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27549 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners have assailed an order of blacklisting dated 4.8.2025 passed by Block Development Officer, Block Kalan, District Shahjahanpur, blacklisting the petitioner-firm for a period of six months. 2. The petitioner-firm was also blacklisted in the past by order dated 17.3.2025. It was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ-C No. 10021 of 2025 on the ground that the show cause notice issued preceding the order of blacklisting did not indicate that it was in respect of proposed action for blacklisting of the petitioner-firm. The contention of the petitioner was that the show cause notice should indicate the action proposed to be taken to enable the petitioner to give effective reply thereto. In support of said submission, the petitioners placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, AIR 2021 SC 166. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 1.7.2025 and the matter was remitted back to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in UMC Technologies Private Limited (supra) and thereafter pass a fresh order. The submission is that the same mistake has been repeated by the respondents while passing the impugned order. The notice, which preceded the impugned order, is again vague and it does not specify that the respondents proposed to blacklist the petitioner-firm. It is also submitted that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner-firm submitted a reply and apart from contesting the allegations on merits, in alternative, it was stated that in case there was any defect in the quality of construction Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Udayan Nandan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Santosh Kumar Shukla M/S Balaji Traders And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) undertaken by the petitioner-firm, the same should have been disclosed to enable the petitioner-firm to rectify the same. It is submitted that relying on the alternative case set up in the reply, the impugned order has been passed treating the same to be an admission, which is factually incorrect. 3. We have gone through the notice issued on 11.7.2025 resulting in passing of the impugned order of blacklisting. The notice again does not specify that it was given seeking explanation in respect of the proposed blacklisting of the petitioner-firm. Moreover, in the reply, it is only in the alternative that the petitioner has stated that in case there was any shortcoming, the petitioner-firm was ready to rectify the same. The same, in our opinion, cannot be treated to be an admission. 4. Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents very fairly states that the matter be remitted back to the respondent no.4 for passing fresh order after issuing a proper show cause notice. 5. Sri Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of one Avdhesh Singh, who claims to be member of Block Development Committee, and on whose complaint, the action has been taken. He is also not in a position to demonstrate that the show cause notice is in-consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in UMC Technologies Private Limited (supra). 6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4.8.2025 blacklisting the petitioner-firm is quashed. It is left open to the respondents to issue a proper show cause notice to the petitioner and after seeking explanation of the petitioner, pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 19, 2025 Anil WRIC No. 27549 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad