While granting relief to a firm which was allotted the tender for the construction of a government college, the Allahabad High Court has held that only the issuance of a show-cause notice is not a condition precedent for any blacklisting order, and the material, as well as the grounds necessitating the contemplated action, have to be mentioned in the notice as well.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking issuance of a direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue work allotted pursuant to a tender for the construction of the Government Girls Degree College at Najibabad.

The Division Bench of Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held, “With regard to blacklisting for an indefinite period that has been issued by the respondents-authorities, we are of the view that such an action is not allowed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that blacklisting for an indefinite period is not permissible in the eyes of law.”

“Further this Court finds that not only the issuance of show cause notice is a condition precedent for any blacklisting order, even the mention of material and ground, necessitating the contemplated blacklisting has to be mentioned in the show cause notice”, it added.

Arguments

The case as set up by the petitioner was that no notice was received with regard to the termination of the contract and proposed blacklisting by the respondents-authorities for an indefinite period. It was further contended that the petitioner was made aware of the order after approximately one year.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the petitioner could proceed as per the terms and conditions in the tender documents, which include an arbitration clause in order to deal with the issue of termination of contract and alleged non-payment of dues.

The Bench noticed that the respondent authorities were not able to indicate whether a proper show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing of the impugned ex parte order of blacklisting. The Bench referred to the judgment in UMC Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India (2021) where the Apex Court quashed a blacklisting order on the ground that it was silent on the proposed blacklisting actions.

“Thus, this Court finds that the recent trend of this Court in blacklisting matter had been on transparency and clarity at the stage of issuance of show cause notice itself. As far as the present case is concerned, we do not find any cogent evidence of issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioners”, the order read.

The Bench disposed of the petition by quashing the impugned order so far as it related to the blacklisting of the petitioner-firm.

Cause Title: M/s Adeeba Naaz Contractor v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:25600-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Inam Uddin Ahmed, Gursimran Kaur, Syed Mohammad Abid

Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel, Advocate Diwakar Singh

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Abdhesh Kumar ChaudharyJustice Shekhar B. Saraf

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.