“Classic Case Of Legal Mala Fide & Colourable Exercise Of Power”: Allahabad High Court Quashes PWD Debarment Of Whistleblower Contractor

In the matter, a crucial dimension of the case was the petitioner’s role as a whistleblower, where he had filed a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging irregularities in the tender process, which led to a high-level inquiry and findings against multiple PWD officials. The Court observed that the subsequent actions against the petitioner appeared to be retaliatory in nature, driven by extraneous considerations. Pertinently, the Lokayukta, acting upon the complaint, found multiple top PWD officials guilty of serious irregularities, with a committee holding six engineers culpable on as many as seventeen charges and recommending action against them.

Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed, “…in the admitted factual position, what can be seen is that the petitioner was given a debarment order thrice and all of them were found to have been passed either in violation of the principles of natural justice or being ‘whimsical and arbitrary’; and on account of the aforesaid colourable exercise of power, the petitioner has been made made to run from pillar to post for the last 8 years. It is also borne out from the documents and the record before this Court is that, the impugned action is on account of the fact that the petitioner was a whistle blower and had made a complaint against top officials of the Public works Department which was found to be correct, in the fact finding enquiry by the Lokayukta. In view of the aforesaid, we hold the entire proceedings is a classical case of a legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power”.

“The facts of the case, is like a belief that dark forces lie behind us unwelcome circumstance, and concomitantly that nobody will notice them; and in these scenario, it is the duty of the courts (even in absence of any pleading) to ascertain that whether a remand would at the stage, only perpetuate an illegality or be necessary for a substantial justice. In the first case, remand, will be futility”, the Bench further noted.

Senior Advocate V.K. Singh appeared for the petitioner and Subra Singh, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.

As per the facts, repeated debarment orders were issued against one M/s Satish Chandra Dixit, allegedly on the ground of discrepancies in an experience certificate submitted during the tender process. However, the Court noted that the same certificate had been examined and accepted by the authorities at the time of awarding the contract.

The Court noted that the action of the PWD, therefore, rested purely on a technical objection raised at a belated stage, after the contract had already been performed.

“We find that the show cause notice based on which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, is on a flimsy technical ground which has no efficacy at this belated stage, when the work has been completed satisfactorily and as far as the charges pertaining to submission of erroneous experience certificate is concerned, assuming that the said charge may have been correct but it is the authorities concerned, who had proceeded to grant the contract after due verification, at that time and has not shown any grievance against the work executed by the petitioner's firm. There are no allegations of insufficiency in the work concluded, in pursuance of the contract or that of irregularities and misappropriation in any form”, it noted.

The Court said that even in ex parte proceedings, it is mandatory to consider the reply and material placed on record, the failure to do so vitiated the entire decision-making process.

Refusing to remand the matter for fresh consideration, the Court observed that the petitioner had already suffered prolonged harassment for nearly eight years, and any further relegation would only perpetuate injustice.

“…given repeated opportunity to rectify the anomalies but the respondents being persistent towards harassing the petitioner and not given him the opportunity through the due process, we at this stage find that since the contract was completed satisfactorily, the matter has become stale, and now much water has flown, to be remanded back for scrutiny by the respondents-authorities, on technical ground”, the bench noted.

“The petitioner had repeatedly submitted reply affirming the correctness of the experience certificate, which was duly examined by the authorities, prior to grant of contract, and the said explanation the authorities had absolutely failed to consider while now after 8 years since the completion of the work, the matter has become stale; and also in view of the legal mala fides being established on the basis of the documents and records before this Court and having held that the authorities were continuously trying to penalize the petitioner, without adhering to the principles of natural justice or to the directions issued by this Court; we find that the ball again cannot be thrown in the court of the respondents, especially when the petitioner, has already undergone a substantial period of stigma of debarment period and that too in violation of the principles of natural justice”, it noted further.

Concluding that the impugned action lacked lawful justification and was tainted by legal mala fides, the High Court quashed the order dated August 30, 2025 and granted relief to the petitioner, bringing the prolonged dispute to an end.

“…This Court also find that the action of the authorities was nothing but an abuse of its power. Since they have utilized their power with an improper motive, for victimization of the petitioner”, the Bench had also observed.

Cause Title: M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Through its Proprietor, Satish Chandra Dixit v. State of U.P. and 5 others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:59781-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Akash Mishra, Yogendra Pati Tripathi, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Sankalp Narain, Shreya Gupta, Suman Kumar Yadav, Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Advocates.

Respondent: Subra Singh, Standing Counsel.

Click here to read/download the Judgment