# M/s Adeeba Naaz Contractor v. State of U. P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 163
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-13
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1258 of 2026
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-adeeba-naaz-contractor-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54693
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

4 All. M/s Adeeba Naaz Contractor Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
163
(2026) 4 ILRA 163
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ C No. 1258 of 2026

M/s Adeeba Naaz Contractor ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether blacklisting of the petitioner firm for an indefinite period without following the natural justice is
legally sustainable?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226:- Writ Petition under Article 226 - seeking reliefs for
quashing show-cause notices as well as for quashing the impugned order whereby the petitioner's contract
was terminated and the firm was blacklisted indefinitely - Tender Notice - for construction of Government Girls
Degree College - Termination of contract disputes - firm was blacklisted for an indefinite period - petitioner
pleaded that no notice of termination or blacklisting was ever served and payments for completed work were
withheld - respondents contended that notices were issued but refused by the petitioner - Court finds that
contract termination and payment disputes are governed by tender terms and arbitration clause, but
blacklisting for indefinite period without proper show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and
violative of principles of natural justice - relying on precedents including Kulja Industries Ltd., Gorkha Security
Services, and UMC Technology Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that, indefinite blacklisting is impermissible and
transparency at the stage of show-cause notice is mandatory - hence, the impugned order insofar as it relates
to blacklisting is quashed and set aside - writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to pursue
contractual remedies under arbitration
(Para - 5, 10, 12, 13)
WP Disposed of. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, BSNL (2014) 14 SCC 731
M/s Hi Tech Pipe Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others (Writ-C No. 11037 of 2024, Allahabad HC, 05.08.2024)
Ragunath Thakur v. State of Bihar & Others (1989) 1 SCC 229
Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others (2014) 9 SCC 105
UMC Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India AIR 2021 SC 166

LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ Petition - Certiorari - Mandamus - Blacklisting - Indefinite period - Show-cause notice - Natural justice -
Tender dispute - Arbitration clause - quashed and set-aside - dispose of.

CASE ARISING FROM
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Arising from impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by Executive Engineer, U.P. Waqf Vikas Nigam Ltd., in
connection with a tender notice No. 4715 for construction of Government Girls Degree College, Najibabad,
District Bijnor.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Inam Uddin Ahmed, Gursimran Kaur,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Diwakar Singh, CSC.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner
wherein the petitioner is seeking following main reliefs:-

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order
dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Respondent No.3 Le. Executive Engineer. UP. Waqf Vikas Nigam
Limited, in the interest of justice. (Annexure No.1).

II. To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari quashing the show-cause
notices dated 19.02.2024 and 20.08.2024 and 21.12.2024 [Annexure No. 2 (Colly)] and other
communications issued by the Respondent No. 3 which were not served upon the Petitioner;

III. To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
allow Petitioner to continue work allotted in pursuant to tender bearing Tender Notice No. 4715 for
construction of the Government Girls Degree College at Najibabad. District Bijnor

IV. To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
supply a copy of the tender bearing Tender Notice No. 4715 for construction of the Government
Girls Degree College at Najibabad, District Bijnor and the contract entered into between the parties
for the execution of work thereof."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was received with regard to
termination of contract and proposed blacklisting by the respondents-authorities. This assertion
made by the petitioner has been controverted by learned counsel for the respondent-authorities by
submitting that several notices were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner refused to accept any
of the them. The impugned order dated January 8, 2025 does not indicate whether any notice was
served upon the petitioner by the respondent-authorities and is silent on this aspect. By the
impugned order, firstly the contract with the petitioner has been terminated and secondly, the
petitioner has been blacklisted for an indefinite period.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner was made aware of the
order dated January 8, 2025 only vide letter dated January 2, 2026, that is, after approximately one
4 All. M/s Adeeba Naaz Contractor Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
165
year. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-authorities have not made
payments to them with regard to the works that have been completed by the petitioner.

5. We are of the view that with regard to the first issue of termination of contract and alleged
non payment of dues to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed as per the terms and
conditions in the tender documents that includes an arbitration clause.

6. With regard to blacklisting for an indefinite period that has been issued by the respondentsauthorities, 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. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. Vs. Chief General
Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Litmited & Others: (2014) 14 SCC 731;
has held as under:-

"22. As regards the period for which the order of debarment will remain effective, the
guidelines state that the same would depend upon the seriousness of the case leading to such
debarment.

23. Similarly in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there are statutory provisions that make
operators ineligible on several grounds including fraud, fraudulent trading or conspiracy to defraud,
bribery etc.

24. Suffice it to say that debarment is recognised and often used as an effective method for
disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and
commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of
the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the debarment
is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the
offence committed by the erring contractor.

[Emphasis supplied by us]

7. We also find that in a Co-ordinate Bench Judgment of this Court dated August 5, 2024 in
the case of M/s Hi Tech Pipe Limited Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others; (Writ-C No. 11037 of 2024);
one of us (Honble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) held that debarment or blacklisting cannot be done for an
indefinite period. The Court further held as follows:-

"5. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for
the parties and we find that before passing the impugned order dated 23.1.2024 petitioner was
issued a show cause notice, to which petitioner submitted a detailed reply and also made a request
for re-testing of pipes supplied by the petitioner. The reply submitted by the petitioner has not been
considered at all while passing the impugned order dated 23.1.2024 and only this much has been
said that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been found satisfactory. We are of the view
that once proper reply was submitted, it was obligatory on the respondents to consider the entire
reply and thereafter by recording reasons the order of blacklisting/debarment could have been
passed. We also find that the impugned order dated 23.1.2024 proceeds to debar the petitioner firm
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for an indefinite period as it is the routine phenomenon that the term of the Schemes/Missions is
extended from time to time.

8. Furthermore, we are of the view that the respondent - authorities are not able to indicate as
to whether a proper show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing of the
impugned ex-parte order of blacklisting.

9. As to the significance of issuance of show cause notice, prior to an order of blacklisting and
providing an opportunity of hearing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ragunath Thakur
Vs. State of Bihar and others; reported in (1989) 1 SCC 229; has held as follows:-

"4. Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the
appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the
rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. Insofar as the contention that there is
no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an
implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only
after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in
respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned
in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that
parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against
the order. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the order insofar as it directs blacklisting of
the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law. In the premises, that portion
of the order directing that the appellant be placed in the blacklist in respect of future contracts
under the Collector is set aside. So far as the cancellation of the bid of the appellant is concerned,
that is not affected. This order will, however, not prevent the State Government or the appropriate
authorities from taking any future steps for blacklisting the appellant if the Government is so
entitled to do in accordance with law i.e. after giving the appellant due notice and an opportunity of
making representation. After hearing the appellant, the State Government will be at liberty to pass
any order in accordance with law indicating the reasons therefor. We, however, make it quite clear
that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness of otherwise of the allegations made
against the appellant. The appeal is thus disposed of.

10. 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. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others; reported in (2014) 9 SCC
105; mandated the contents of the proposed show cause notice in the following words:-

"25) It is thus apparent that this sub-clause provides for various actions which can be taken
and penalties which can be imposed by the Department. In such a situation which action the
Department proposes to take, need to be specifically stated in the show cause notice. It becomes all
the more important when the action of black listing and/ or forfeiture of earnest money/ security
deposit is to be taken, as the clause stipulates that such an action can be taken, if so warranted. The
words 'if so warranted', thus, assume great significance. It would show that it is not necessary for
the Department to resort to penalty of black listing or forfeiture of earnest money/ security deposit
4 All. Vertel Digital Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
167
in all cases, even if there is such a power. It is left to the Department to inflict any such penalty or
not depending upon as to whether circumstances in a particular case warrant such a penalty. There
has to be due application of mind by the authority competent to impose the penalty, on these
aspects. Therefore, merely because of the reason that clause 27 empowers the Department to
impose such a penalty, would not mean that this specific penalty can be imposed, without putting
the defaulting contractor to notice to this effect.

26) We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was incumbent on the part of the Department to
state in the show cause notice that the competent authority intended to impose such a penalty of
blacklisting, so as to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show cause
against the same. However, we may also add that even if it is not mentioned specifically but from
the reading of the show cause notice, it can be clearly inferred that such an action was proposed,
that would fulfill this requirement. In the present case, however, reading of the show cause notice
does not suggest that noticee could find out that such an action could also be taken. We say so for
the reasons that are recorded hereinafter.

11. In the same breath, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Food Corporation of India; reported in MANU/SC/0858/2020 : AIR 2021 SC 166; quashed a
blacklisting order not on the ground of non-issuance of show cause notice or the show cause notice
lacked any material ground but on the ground that it was silent on the proposed blacklisting actions.

12. 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.

13. In light of the same, the impugned order dated January 8, 2025 so far as it relates to
blacklisting of the petitioner-firm as being arbitrary and in violation of principal of natural justice
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and as such is hereby quashed and set-aside.

14. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 167
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ C No. 2067 of 2026

Vertel Digital Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents