Blacklisting Cannot Be For Indefinite Period: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹50,000/- Cost On District Magistrate

The Allahabad High Court while imposing ₹50,000/- costs on the District Magistrate has highlighted that it is flooded with such Petitions where blacklisting orders are being passed either without issuing any show cause notice or for an indefinite period.

The Court was considering Writ Petitions filed challenging the decision of the blacklisting of Petitioners.

The division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manish Kumar observed, "As observed earlier everyday we are flooded with such petitions where blacklisting orders are being passed either without issuing any show cause notice or for an indefinite period. After all, how many times the Court will pronounce their judgment as to the procedure and the law on the subject of blacklisting. The Officers should be aware of it especially when they have a battery of lawyers to assist them right from the High Court to the District level. In such matters, if they are not aware about the law, they should take legal opinion before proceeding against any firm as it may have serious consequences for a firm/company which is blacklisted. None of this exercise was done. That is why we were compelled to pass the aforesaid order."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Amit Jaiswal while the Respondent was represented by C.S.C.

The Court was dissatisfied with the Magistrate's response to its query and thus observed, " The District Magistrate has not even referred to the judgments which we have referred in our order. This is the response of the District Magistrate on a question of law explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is binding on all authorities under Article 144 of the Constitution of India......It appears that he has not even bothered to go through the said decisions, referred in our order dated 07.07.2025, quoted hereinabove, otherwise he would not have offered the explanation which he has tried to putforth before us. This is nothing but an intransigent attempt to justify an unjustifiable act in the teeth of law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The provisions cited by him could not be applied without putting the petitioners to notice proposing the action of blacklisting giving them reasonable opportunity to respond and the basis/material on which such action was proposed, with opportunity to it to respond and consider such response. It is settled law that apart from other aspects proportionality is also an issue to be considered in such matters."

Noting that the Magistrate rater than accepting he erred in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, offered a conditional explanation, the Court held, "It is not a case of inadvertence but one of absolute lack of application of mind to the law on the subject."

It was thus inclined to impose a cost of ₹50,000/- on the District Magistrate and ₹25,000/- on District Basic Education Officer.

"The period of blacklisting is to be mentioned in the order, which has not been done. No document has been annexed to show any provision known to the petitioners prescribing a time limit of one year of blacklisting. The explanation is an eyewash and does not stand scrutiny on the anvil of law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court," the Court observed.

The Petitions were accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: M/S Cropscare Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow vs. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:42247-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Amit Jaiswal, Advocate Adesh Srivastava, Advocate Shobhit Mohan Shukla

Respondent- C.S.C,. Advoacte Abhinav Singh

Click here to read/ download Order