# Jm Pharma A Propreitorship Firm v. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 681
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7685 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jm-pharma-a-propreitorship-firm-v-principal-secretary-department-of-medical-54271
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

2 All. Jm Pharma A Propreitorship Firm Vs. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Ors. 681

122. So the Apex Court while explaining the object behind the introduction of Minimum
Wages Act has held that the capacity of employer is not to be considered as the welfare State
assumes every employer must pay the minimum wages to its labour before employing them so as to
prevent the exploitation of labours.

123. The Apex Court in the case of Sukanya Shantha (supra) has dealt with contours of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and in paragraph no.34 of the judgement, the Apex Court
has summarized the constitutional standard laid down by the Court under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Paragraph no.34 of the said judgement is reproduced herein below:-

"34. The constitutional standards laid down by the Court under Article 14 can be
summarized as follows. First, the Constitution permits classification if there is intelligible differentia
and reasonable nexus with the object sought. Second, the classification test cannot be merely applied as
a mathematical formula to reach a conclusion. A challenge under Article 14 has to take into account the
substantive content of equality which mandates fair treatment of an individual. Third, in undertaking
classification, a legislation or subordinate legislation cannot be manifestly arbitrary, i.e. courts must
adjudicate whether the legislature or executive acted capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate
determining principle, or did something which is excessive and disproportionate. In applying this
constitutional standard, courts must identify the "real purpose" of the statute rather than the
"ostensible purpose" presented by the State, as summarized in ADR. Fourth, a provision can be found
manifestly arbitrary even if it does not make a classification. Fifth, different constitutional standards
have to be applied when testing the validity of legislation as compared to subordinate legislation."

124. It is true that a law should satisfy the twin test as laid down by the Apex Court in order to
pass the test of reasonable classification. However, the Madras High Court has categorically
repelled the contention of employer that amendment in Section 12 of the Act, 1965 amounts to
class legislation and is discriminatory. Therefore, the judgement of Apex Court in the case of
Sukanya Shantha (supra) is of no help to the petitioners.

125. Thus for the reasons given above, we are of the view that all the writ petitions lack merit
and are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 681
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR , J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ C No. 7685 of 2025

Jm Pharma A Proprietorship Firm ...Petitioner
Versus
Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Ors. ...Respondents
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether cancellation of tender/purchase order and adverse action based on an enquiry conducted without
furnishing details of allegations, without supplying supporting material, and without affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice; and
whether, in such circumstances, the matter requires a fresh enquiry.
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art.226 - Tender/Contract - Cancellation of bid - Enquiry report -
Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Rule of Law - Petitioner awarded contract
pursuant to bid - Supply made - CRAC generated - Payment not released - Enquiry conducted
alleging substandard supply and irregularities - Tender cancelled - Maintainability and validity:
Fairness, transparency, and impartiality in administrative action are facets of the Rule of Law -
Every authority is bound to act within the framework of law and cannot exercise power
unreasonably or arbitrarily - Decisions affecting rights must be based on relevant material and
objective considerations - The affected party must be informed about allegations and be
supplied with all relevant documents and reports relied upon, and granted a reasonable and
meaningful opportunity to rebut all the allegations and defend the case - The Rule of Law
requires that discretion be exercised without bias or predetermined conclusions - Where serious
civil consequences such as cancellation of contract or blacklisting are involved, strict adherence
to natural justice is mandatory - Any action taken in violation of these principles cannot be
sustained in law.

Held: In the instant case, a tender was issued for supply of diagnostic material - The petitioner was selected
as the successful bidder and a purchase/work order was issued - The petitioner supplied the material and a
Consignee Receipt and Acceptance Certificate (CRAC) was generated indicating acceptance of goods - The
petitioner sought release of payment - Subsequently, an enquiry committee was constituted; the first enquiry
report recorded that the quantity was complete and quality could be assessed only through laboratory testing,
whereas a subsequent enquiry alleged discrepancies and supply of substandard material - A show cause
notice was issued, to which the petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations - The purchase order was
cancelled. Held: Petitioner was not provided any details of defective goods or any laboratory reports in
support of the allegation of substandard quality in the show cause notice - The petitioner was also not made
to participate in the enquiry and was not given details of the allegations or the basis of the impugned opinion,
nor any reasonable opportunity to respond - The entire action is in violation of the principles of natural justice
- Successful generation of CRAC indicates that the petitioner is legally entitled to receive payment - The
impugned order and enquiry report are quashed - The matter is remanded for fresh enquiry by a new
committee - Direction issued to provide a fresh show cause notice along with all material relied upon and to
afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing. [Paras 27, 28, 29] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 40;
Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105;
Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2020) 18 SCC 550;
UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551

List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keyword
2 All. Jm Pharma A Propreitorship Firm Vs. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Ors. 683
Natural justice; Audi alteram partem; Show cause notice; Cancellation of tender; Enquiry report; Civil
consequences; Rule of law; CRAC; Payment obligation; Arbitrary administrative action; Opportunity of hearing;
Remand for fresh enquiry.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 04.03.2025 cancelling the bid and enquiry report dated 13.02.2025.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Udai Chandani
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Pooja Singh, Rekha Singh
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev
Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner,
who is proprietorship firm in a business of pharmaceutical, mainly prays for writ in the nature of
certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 04.03.2025, whereby the bid dated 25.11.2024
granted in the favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner further seeks writ in the nature
of certiorari seeking quashing of the enquiry report dated 13.02.2025 as well. Petitioner also prays
for a writ of mandamus to command respondent no. 5 to release payment due against the invoices
raised pursuant to the work order dated 25.11.2024.

3. The background fact of the matter is that petitioner participated in a tender bearing bid no.
GEMC/2024-25/B/5533411 dated 23.10.2024 issued by the office of respondent no. 5 for
diagnostic material and got selected for providing the material. Petitioner entered into a contract on
25.11.2024 in pursuance of the above mentioned bidding. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that as per the work order, the material was to be supplied by the petitioner by
10.12.2024 after due verification of sample, but certain materials were not available, therefore, an
extension application was filed, and fifteen days of extension was provided to the petitioner on
15.12.2024. The counsel for the petitioner submits that materials were supplied within time,
considering the extension granted, and were duly accepted by the respondent authority.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the bid document required
the successful bidder to obtain approval of sample in advance before commencing bulk supply and
it was a matter of record that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Chief Medical Officer
requesting acceptance of the sample submitted for GEMC/2024-25/B/5533411. After entire
material was supplied to the respondent no. 5, the Consignee Receipt and Acceptance Certificate
(hereinafter referred to as ?CRAC?) was generated, which acknowledged a fact that services
rendered by the petitioner was satisfactory and within ten days from generation of CRAC, the
payment, as raised by the petitioner, was to be released.
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned counsel submitted that the letter dated 07.01.2025 was sent to the Chief Medical
Officer seeking release of payment of Rs. 1,60,47,000/-, stating that the required documents had
already been uploaded and that there was delay in payment. Further, the petitioner had sent
reminders in this regard, but petitioner got to know from the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar
that an enquiry committee was constituted on 07.02.2025, which submitted its report dated
13.02.2025 and subsequently, by office letter dated 03.03.2025, the purchase order dated
25.11.2024 bearing Purchase Order No. GEMC-511687758881075 was cancelled. As a sequel to
that the Additional Chief Medical Store, Chief Pharmacist and Pharmacist, Central Drug Store were
directed to initiate the process for return of all materials relating to the said purchase. In pursuance
of the above, the Chief Medical Officer issued a consequential letter dated 04.03.2025.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the inquiry committee had analyzed the materials in
the store on 16.01.2025 and had observed that no sample material was provided to the committee,
and materials the inquiry report stated, which was received by the committee, was found complete
in quantity. The report further stated that in absence of sample provided before the supply of the
materials which was to be analyzed, the quality assessment and comparison could not have been
done. It further observed that the supplied materials were related to pathology lab and the materials
were as per the standard norms and therefore, there could not have been any comment on this
without any lab examination.

7. He next submitted that there was another report dated 23.12.2024 which stated that the
materials were sub-standard and those were less in numbers. The report further stated that the
extension of the date was not based upon correct documents as there was no document available
which would have demonstrated that there was any time extension provided to the seller by the
Chief Medical Officer. The report further stated that on 14.12.2024, the Chief Medical Officer, who
got transferred was to provide time extension.

8. The petitioner's counsel submitted that by letter dated 29.01.2025, which got issued in the
nature of a show cause notice proposing blacklisting of the petitioner's firm, it was stated that
pursuant to the petitioner's earlier letter dated 07.01.2025 seeking payment, a three-member
enquiry committee was constituted on 10.01.2025 to examine Bid No. GEMC/2024-25/B/5533411
dated 23.10.2024 and Purchase Order No. Gem C-511687758881075 dated 25.11.2024, and to
submit its report within three days, which was communicated to the petitioner on 18.01.2025. The
petitioner's counsel submitted that the committee conducted an enquiry on 24.01.2025 and alleged
differences in items and quantity, supply of substandard materials, and termed the purchase process
as suspicious, stating that payment could not be released as per rules. It was further alleged that the
petitioner had not supplied the materials as per the terms and specifications of the tender and was
creating pressure for payment. By the said notice, the petitioner was granted two days' time to
supply the materials in accordance with the tender conditions, failing which the tender and
purchase order would be cancelled, the security amount forfeited, and the firm recommended for
blacklisting.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the detailed reply dated 30.01.2025 that was
filed in response to the show cause notice dated 29.01.2025 and while referring reply, he submitted
that the enquiry committee was constituted only after he sought payment on 07.01.2025 and hence
2 All. Jm Pharma A Propreitorship Firm Vs. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Ors. 685
the action was unreasonable and arbitrary. He referred to earlier enquiry report dated 16.01.2025,
which, recorded that the quantity supplied was adequate and that quality could be determined only
through laboratory testing. Learned counsel also submitted that the the inspection report dated
23.12.2024 was not supplied to him. He further contended that without laboratory testing, the
allegation of substandard material was unfounded.

10. He further submitted that the subsequent enquiry dated 24.01.2025 recorded contrary
findings, termed the materials substandard, and questioned the procurement process, while the
enquiry committee had no authority to examine the legality of a duly approved purchase, which
was already concluded. He further stated that the show cause notice did not specify any item-wise
defects, batch numbers, brands, or enclose any laboratory report, and that grant of only two days?
time to reply amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity.

11. Learned counsel also contended that CRAC had already been issued without objection as
to quality or quantity and that payment was required to be made within ten days thereof as per
rules. He alleged that re-examination at a later stage was only to delay payment and raised
apprehension of tampering during the intervening period. He asserted that he had supplied the
materials strictly in terms of the tender, enclosed receipts and valid laboratory reports, denied
exerting any undue pressure, and alleged mala fide intent to cancel the tender and blacklist his firm.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner send letter to the District Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar against arbitrary action of the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar, Assistant Chief
Medical Officer and Chief Pharmacist for non-cooperating in providing the details of the materials
which allegedly not provided by the petitioner. He reiterated that the petitioner had not been
provided any details of goods which were not claimed to have not been supplied or the details of
goods which was sub-standard.

13. Learned counsel contended that the bid document provided that the tender committee had
the sole authority to accept or reject any bid and to cancel the ongoing bid without prior notice. The
contract contained a termination clause, which permitted the buyer to terminate the contract by
written notice if the seller failed to supply the materials within the stipulated period or failed to
replace or rectify defective goods but this was not the case where CRAC was also generated and
payment was being delayed even after sending reminders.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after CRAC dated 15.12.2024,
petitioner was entitled to receive payment from the respondent within ten days. Learned counsel for
the petitioner placed reliance upon the Office Memorandum dated 03.07.2020 issued by the
Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which is reproduced below for the ready reference:

"No F 6/18/2016-PPD

Government of India Department of Expenditure

Ministry of Finance
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Procurement Policy Division
512. Lok Nayak Bhawan

New Delhi Dated the 3rd July 2020

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Prompt payment to suppliers including MSMEs: Charging of interest on
delayed payments in Government e-Marketplace (GeM)

Reference This Department OM No FG/18/2019-PPD dated 23.01.2020

1. Government has been repeatedly emphasizing the need for prompt payment to vendors
specially the MSME vendors. The intent of the Government in this regard has been articulated
under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat pronouncements. For procurements made under rule 149 of GFRs
2017, buyers are mandated to make payments within 10 calendar days after generation
(including auto generation) of Consignee Receipt and Acceptance Certificate (CRAC) in the
GeM.

2. In order to promote greater discipline and timeliness in payment to vendors it is
decided that whenever a CRAC is auto generated or issued by a buyer and payment is not made 10
days thereafter the buyer organization will be required to pay penal interest @ 1% per month for
the delayed payment beyond the prescribed timeline till the date of such payment. The charge of
interest shall be prorated for the period of delay. [For example, if CRAC is generated on the 1st
day of a month and payment is made by the buyer organization on the 20th day of the month,
interest for 10 days will be charged. The penal interest will be 10/30 multiplied by 1% i.e. 0.33%]
Month may be taken as 30 days in all cases.

3. The amount collected in this regard shall be deposited in an account maintained by
GeM. This interest will not be paid to the vendor and will be kept by GeM in a separate account
which will be used only for the education of sellers/buyers etc or other purposes related to GeM or
public procurement with the prior approval of Department of Expenditure. This shall not cover any
other interest payable to vendors under any law of contractual obligations, which will be over and
above the interest as charged above.

4. The above conditions will be applicable for all procurements made from 1st October
2020.

5. This issues with the approval of Finance Minister.
Sd/-
(Kotluru Narayana Reddy)
Deputy Secretary to the Govt of India
Tel No 24621305 Email kn reddy@gov in"
2 All. Jm Pharma A Propreitorship Firm Vs. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Ors. 687

15. In the light of paragraph 2 of the above mentioned Office Memorandum, any autogenerated CRAC issued by the buyer makes it mandatory that the buyer shall make payment within
ten days and if it fails to do so, there is a provision for the penal interest for delayed payment
beyond that prescribed time line till the date of such payment. Bringing of provision for penal
interest shows the intention of the government to ensure timely payment to the suppliers after the
CRAC is generated.

16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 5 submitted that the
Enquiry Committee submitted detailed report dated 13.02.2025. In the said report, it was found that
a case of corruption related to the Health Department was registered against the petitioner with the
CBI and STF, New Delhi, and that charge sheets had been filed and charges had been framed by
the competent court, including the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption/CBI, Ghaziabad. He
further submitted that Case No. 40 of 2015 and Case No. 18 of 2016 were still pending.

17. Learned counsel representing respondents further submits that the petitioner uploaded a
notarized affidavit along with the bid, which was based on false facts, as the aforesaid criminal
cases were concealed there. He contended that the firm deliberately suppressed these facts and
obtained the tender in its favour. Reliance was placed upon Government Order dated 06.11.2023
issued by the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Medical Section-1, which directed that no
agency or firm involved in corruption shall be granted work under any circumstances. It was
contended that despite the said Government Order, the then GeM Buyer/Consignee and Senior
Finance and Accounts Officer acted illegally and attempted to process payment in favour of the
firm.

18. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 5 further submitted that the purchase order was
issued to the petitioner firm on 25.11.2024 in relation to the bid, in which the time period was fixed
for 15 days, which was expiring on 10.12.2024, but the supply as per the purchase order was not
completed by the petitioner firm within the stipulated period. On 14.12.2024, the Chief Medical
Officer was transferred by the government, after which new Chief Medical Officer assumed charge
on 16.12.2024.

19. The Enquiry Committee examined the purchase order issued on the GeM portal and found
that on 15.12.2024, which was Sunday, the then GeM Buyer and GeM Consignee extended the
time for supply of medical items without any written order from the then Chief Medical Officer,
Kanpur Nagar. It was also recorded that the then GeM Buyer and GeM Consignee took advantage
of the period between the transfer of the earlier Chief Medical Officer and the joining of the present
Chief Medical Officer, extending the supply period in haste and contrary to rules, before the
generation of the CRAC.

20. Learned counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Committee found that the acts of the
GeM Buyer and GeM Consignee violated rules, and acted to benefit the firm. The Committee
observed that the materials supplied under the bid were substandard, with discrepancies between
the batch numbers on the bill vouchers uploaded on the GeM portal and those of the materials
physically received were in lesser quantity. The department instructed that the materials be returned
after informing the firm of these issues and of its being charge-sheeted by the CBI under serious
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sections. He further submitted that departmental investigation also found the petitioner and certain
officials guilty, and legal action had been initiated against them.

21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted in the rejoinder argument that there
was no suppression of fact as alleged by the respondent as no charges were ever framed against the
petitioner and nor was he convicted in any case by the court. He submits that cases were against
respondent no.5 and that could not have been interpreted as suppression of facts by petitioner at
initial stage. He also contended that the enquiry was conducted by same authority against whom the
petitioner has preferred complained before district magistrate and this alone rendered complete
action at fault as it was against the principle that ?no one can be judge of his own cause?. Learned
counsel for the petitioner emphasised upon a fact that there was no occasion when the petitioner
was provided a show cause having details of allegations with supported evidence to provide too
short time to submit reply. It was also contended that the impugned enquiry report was ex-parte
which had the adverse effect on petitioner and, therefore, the same deserved to be quashed.

22. Issues that fall for consideration are; whether the issuance of the Consignee Receipt and
Acceptance Certificate (CRAC) validates satisfactory supply of goods and entitles the petitioner to
get timely payment and therefore the respondent is under liability to make payment; whether
petitioner was given proper show cause having allegations and the basis to form a conclusive view
and the enquiry was conducted fairly in accordance with the principle of rule of law, and whether
the petitioner was afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity to rebut allegations.

23. Having dealt with the factual matrix and the rival submissions, it is now necessary to
advert to the settled principles applicable to the controversy involved in the matter. In Uma Nath
Pandey v. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 40, the Supreme Court has held that:

"(10). The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States
is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the
parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are
well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem
rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It
must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to
meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his
representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order
passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the
case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of
natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play."

24. This is the settled principle which has been consistently followed and in Gorkha Security
Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 9 SCC 105, Supreme Court has held that any exercise of
power prejudicially affecting another must be in conformity with the rule of natural justice.
Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2020) 18 SCC 550 and UMC Technologies (P)
Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551 has also followed the same principles.
2 All. Jm Pharma A Propreitorship Firm Vs. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health & Ors. 689

25. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case, and submissions advanced by counsel,
it appears that the entire dispute arose due to contradictory reports and allegation of procedural
irregularities. The grievance of the petitioner is that after sample approval, goods were supplied
within the extended time, and thereafter CRAC was generated and yet payment was delayed despite
repeated reminders made. Respondent's allegation is that the product did not get delivered timely
and failed to meet the quality as well as quantity, both were not satisfactory. It is also clear from
records that there were two enquiry committee reports having differing findings. While report dated
16.01.2025 recorded that quantity was adequate and quality could only be determined, though
examination in lab but the subsequent enquiry report dated 24.01.2025 concluded that substandard
materials were supplied and questioned the procurement process as well.

26. Fairness, transparency, and impartiality in administrative action are facets of the Rule of
Law. Under the Rule of Law, every authority is bound to act within the framework of law and
cannot exercise power unreasonably or arbitrarily. Decisions affecting rights must be based on
relevant material and objective considerations. The affected party must be informed about
allegations, and be supplied with all relevant documents and reports relied upon, and granted a
reasonable and meaningful opportunity to rebut all the allegations and defend the case. The Rule of
Law requires that discretion be exercised without bias or predetermined conclusions. Where serious
civil consequences such as cancellation of contract or blacklisting are involved, strict adherence to
natural justice is mandatory. We are of the considered view that any action taken in violation of
these principles cannot be sustained in law.

27. It in the facts of the case, petitioner was not provided any details of defective goods or any
laboratory reports in support of the allegation of substandard quality in the show cause notice.
Further, the extension of supply time on 15.12.2024, by the then Chief Medical Officer, and
successful generation of CRAC, indicates that the petitioner is legally entitled to receive payment.
From bare reading of the impugned report, it appears that the petitioner was not made to participate
in the enquiry and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to defend any of the
allegations made against him. In fact, petitioner was not given details of the allegations and the
basis to form that impugned opinion and the reasonable opportunity to respond. This complete
action is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Considering above discussion, we are of
view that there is need for an independent enquiry in the matter.

28. In view of the above, petition deserves to be allowed to the extent that a fresh enquiry is
conducted by a new enquiry committee, comprising officers who were not previously involved in
the case. We direct respondent no.1 to set up an enquiry committee within period of two weeks
from the date of this order. The Chairperson of the Committee shall be an Additional Secretary and
members shall not be from the same District Administration as there was allegation regarding
connivance. A fresh show cause notice along with all documents forming basis of the allegations
shall be provided to the petitioner and the petitioner shall have reasonable opportunity to respond
all allegations. The fresh enquiry is directed to be completed in eight weeks for giving the fresh
show cause notice to the petitioner.
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 04.03.2025 and
enquiry report dated 13.02.2025 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1, for
fresh enquiry and decision in terms of the directions issued hereinabove.

30. In the circumstances, petitioner would be permitted to participate in future tender
proceedings.

31. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 690
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ C No. 13237 of 2025

The C/M, Nawab Singh Chauhan Gramodaya Inter College & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to the legality of the order passed by the Regional Level Committee rejecting rival elections of
Committee of Management and directing fresh elections on the basis of undisputed membership list of the
year 2012; and the validity of subsequent elections conducted pursuant thereto.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, s.16-A(7) - Societies Registration Act, 1860, s.4-B -
Scheme of Administration - Dispute regarding membership and validity of elections of
Committee of Management Rival elections set up by parties - Regional Level Committee
rejected both elections holding membership lists manipulated - Directed fresh election on basis
of undisputed list of 284 members of year 2012 - Challenge - Justification:

Held: It is a case arising out of a dispute essentially of admission of new members and removal of old
members and such meetings have to be conducted strictly in terms of provisions of the Scheme of
Administration - Though the Scheme permits that in absence of President, Vice-President can conduct the
meeting, however, there must be legally sustainable reasons for his absence, which do not reflect from the
minutes - No communication from the President was placed on record - Even though further procedure may
appear to be in terms of the Scheme, the manner in which the meeting was conducted was not proper -
There is no sufficient material to demonstrate how names of forty members were deleted except a general
reference that some of them are dead and no documentary proof was taken on record - Thus, the meeting in
which sixty members were admitted and forty members were deleted was not conducted in accordance with
the Scheme of Administration - Expulsion of members on allegations of misconduct without any declaration
that they were found guilty and without affording opportunity is also not proper - There is no legally
sustainable reason to conduct election about six months before expiry of tenure and the observation that