# M/s Satish Chandra Dixit v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 34251 of 2025
- **Bench:** Atul Sreedharan, Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-satish-chandra-dixit-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54306
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,646 of 43,337. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39646 for what follows._

370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. It is also open to the competent authority that in case he is not satisfied with the report
made under Section 5 (1) of the Code, 2006, he may make further enquiry. However, the provision
to Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1976 clearly provides that permission shall not be refused without
affording the opportunity of hearing to the applicant. In the present case, we find that no
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. However,
he could have made a further enquiry, seeking report on physical partition, as provided under
Section 30(2) of the Code, 2006.

19. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law and accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 is set aside. The
petitioner will be at liberty to approach the concerned authority with a fresh application, demonstrating particularly,
that the plot over which trees are standing is in his exclusive possession and also giving specific particulars
pertaining to the pendency of the cases with respect to the plots in question and whether there is any interim order
operating in the said pending proceedings i.e. demonstrating that there is no legal impediment.

20. In case, there is no interim order in the pending proceedings for mutation, which otherwise is in the nature
of a summary proceeding also, the competent authority shall proceed to decide the application. In case, the State
has a claim over any part of the land, which is a part of Gata No. 17 Mi, they shall proceed to get the demarcation
done at their own behest, within a period of four weeks from the date of the application and thereafter, within a
period of two weeks take a decision on the application made by the petitioner regarding permission as
contemplated under the Act, 1976; giving due consideration to the recommendation dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure4).

21. Before parting with the aforesaid case, we find that the conduct and approach of the respondent no. 4
while passing the impugned order, was not in consonance with law and even otherwise, he has tried to carve out a
new case before this Court, that the rejection was on account of non-partition of minjumla plot under Section 30
sub clause (2) of the Code, 2006. Since, we do not intend to pass an order which may otherwise infringe the right
of the State, we refrain ourselves from passing any further order vis-a-vis the respondent no.4 but he is cautioned
that in future he must take steps which are in consonance with the provisions of the law.

22. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 370
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 34251 of 2025

M/s Satish Chandra Dixit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3 All. M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
371
Issue for consideration
The petitioner, a contractor was repeatedly targeted with debarment and blacklisting orders by the Public
Works Department after he blew the whistle on top officials to the Lokayukta. Although he completed his work
satisfactorily, the department used a flimsy technicality regarding an experience certificate to justify the
penalties. The authorities deliberately ignored his detailed replies and violated specific High Court directions to
grant him a fair hearing.

Headnotes
A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-Blacklisting/Debarment-contractor debarred for a third
time on technical grounds regarding an experience certificate after acting as a whistleblower
against the department officials-Non-consideration of replies submitted pursuant to specific
directions of the High court amounts to violation of natural justice-Further an order once set
aside by the Court cannot be revived indirectly by a subsequent order-Such persistent
harassment and disregard for judicial directions constitutes a "legal mala fide" and a "colorable
exercise of power"- Where action is found to be arbitrary, oppressive and in abuse of authority,
remand is not warranted and relief must be granted-Hence, the impugned order cannot be
sustained-Writ petition allowed.(Para 37 to 47)
Held
The court quashed the impugned debarment order, ruling that the persistent harassment of a contractor
through repeated "whimsical and arbitrary" penalties for a stale technicality, while ignoring his detailed replies
and specific judicial directions, constitutes a "classical case of legal mala fide" and an abuse of power intended
to victimize a whistleblower who reported departmental corruption to the Lokayukta. The court further held
that an administrative authority cannot revive a previously quashed order, and where a citizen has been
forced to run "from pillar to post" for eight years despite satisfactory work completion, the matter cannot be
remanded back to the erring authorities as it would only perpetuate illegality and deny substantial justice. (E6)

Case law Cited
Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.(2026) SCC OnLine SC 32- referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, U.P. Lokayukta Adhiniyam 1975.

List of Keywords
Legal mala fide, Colorable exercise of Power, Whistleblower, Debarment and blacklisting , natural justice,
malice in law, remand, whimsical and arbitrary, Debarment orders, Harassment, Corruption, Lokayukta, From
Pillar to Post.

Case Arising from
Civil jurisdiction: WRIT-C No.- 34251 of 2025 23.03.2026
M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Through Its Proprietor, Satish Chandra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & 5 Ors
From the judgment and order dated 23.03.2026 of the High Court of judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s)
Akash Mishra, Yogendra Pati Tripathi, Haritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Sankalp Narain, Shreya
Gupta, Suman Kumar Yadav, Vijal Kumar Tiwari
Adv. for Respondent(s)
C.S.C

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Subra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the
order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 by way of which the representation of the
petitioner, in pursuance of the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 23063 of 2024
(M/s Satish Chandra Dixit vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), has been rejected, and upholding the
order of debarment dated 21.06.2024 for the remaining period of 9 months 22 days (i.e. up to
21.02.2026) has been upheld.

Facts of the Case

3. The office of Superintendent Engineer Badaun, Pilibhit Circle, P.W.D. Bareilly had invited
tender vide notification dated 11.12.2020 for the work of financial year 2020-21, i.e, for the
construction of minor bridge; and the value of the work was 514.00 lacs. It is the case of the
petitioner that on the basis of the false complaint made by one Shri Javed Khan proprietor of
participating firm M/S A.M. Builders, the petitioner was debarred and the single tender of M/S
A.M. Builders was accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner was debarred for the second time on
26.11.2021 and against which he had preferred Writ-C No.890 of 2022 (M/s Satish Chandra Dixit
vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court vide order dated 28.07.2022, held that the order of
debarment, is a result of "whimsical and arbitrary" exercise of power and was quashed.

4. It is relevant to mention here that the notice was given on account of the fact that the
declaration on e-stamp paper of Rs. 10 was made, while thereafter to rectify the said bona fide
mistake, and by way his explanation, the petitioner submitted a declaration form on e-stamp paper
worth Rs. 100/-; and therefore, the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not at all considered
while passing of the impugned order, i.e. an order of debarment for a period of 1 year from entering
into a fresh contract.

5. It further transpires that a complaint in the month of February, 2022 was made by the
petitioner before the Lokayukta at Lucknow, pointing out irregularities adopted in the tender which
was given to M/s A.M. Builders and in pursuance thereof a High Level Committee was constituted
and eventually the Committee submitted its report along with its recommendation dated
19.09.2023, finding culpability of 6 Engineers being guilty of 17 charges.

6. On account of the aforesaid penal action being proposed, it has been alleged by the
petitioner that initially he was pressurized to enter into a compromise with the officials of the
department, who were found guilty in the report of the Lokayukta dated 19.09.2023 and once he
did not succumb to the pressure, he was given a show cause notice by the respondent no.3/Chief
Engineer (Headquarter-2), Public Works Department at Lucknow; alleging that the petitioner has
annexed erroneous experience certificate at the time of participating in tender proceedings in the
year 2019, in District Badaun; and an erroneous experience certificate in Bareilly at the time of
getting registration process, in the year 2018.
3 All. M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373

7. Thereafter, the petitioner was debarred for a period of 2 years, vide order dated 21.06.2024
and was also blacklisted on 09.10.2024.

8. The petitioner filed a petition being Writ-C No.23063 of 2024 and another petition being
Writ-C No.42927 of 2024, against the aforesaid order. This Court vide order dated 27.05.2025
found that though a reply was submitted on 19.05.2024, against show cause notice dated
07.05.2024, the impugned order was passed placing reliance on alleged discovery made subsequent
to the reply and accordingly, there was violation of principles of natural justice; and accordingly,
petitioner was given liberty to file a fresh reply by 15.07.2025, after submitting his requisition on
the documents which were discovered subsequent to his earlier reply by 09.06.2025. On
submission of such a requisition on the discoveries by 09.06.2025, the petitioner be further allowed
inspection and after considering the consolidated reply to be given by the petitioner by 15.07.2025,
the authorities were directed to pass fresh orders.

9. The petitioner submits that he had sought information from the department vide his
application dated 03.06.2025 but the department did not provide him the complete information, as
desired by him and as directed by this Court; and while in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner, by
way of colourable exercise of power, they had lodged an FIR against him, in order to coerce him
further, in collusion with M/s A.M. Builders through its proprietor Shri Javed Khan.

10. However, the department had provided information on 3 points on 11.07.2025.

11. The petitioner with the information received and in order to meet the deadline set by this
Court, submitted his reply dated 15.07.2025 and supplemented the same by another reply dated
14.08.2025, before the department.

12. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a letter dated 11.08.2025 was sent by the
Chief Engineer, to the petitioner asking him to appear in person within a period of 3 days and in
case he does not appear he will not be granted any further indulgence and on the basis of the reply
dated 15.07.2025, the proceedings will be concluded. Thereafter, the impugned order has been
passed by the respondents.

Issues

(i) Whether it was incumbent upon the respondents, even in the case of the petitioner failing to
appear in person before the authority, to consider the reply dated 15.07.2025 and 14.08.2025 and
pass a reasoned order, on the basis of replies and documents on record?

(ii) Whether in the factual background and the directions by this Hon'ble High Court, instance
of legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power can be inferred.

(iii) Whether after repeated opportunities and directions when the authorities have failed to
consider the reply of the petitioner and legal mala fide being writ large, can the matter be again
relegated back to the authorities for fresh decision considering that petitioner has suffered
debarment and blacklisting, without adequate consideration.
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Issue No. I - Whether it was incumbent upon the respondents, even in the case of the
petitioner failing to appear in person before the authority, to consider the reply dated 15.07.2025
and 14.08.2025 and pass an appropriate order on the basis of replies and documents on record.

Discussion/Conclusion

13. Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has emphasized on the fact that since the
petitioner had filed a complaint in the month of February 2022 against the officials of the Public
Works Department and the High Level Committee by the Lokayukta also found the complaint of
the petitioner to be genuine and had recommended vide its letter dated 19.09.2023 to the Chief
Secretary, to take appropriate action; the department was having legal mala fides and ill intentions
against the petitioner, and accordingly in spite of the specific direction and timeline being fixed by
the High Court in its order dated 27.05.2025, primarily the department did not supply the complete
information as desired by him and secondly though a detailed explanation in the form of reply
dated 15.02.2025 and 14.08.2025, was very much before the authority concerned; but in spite of the
same, in the impugned order it has merely been stated that the reply which has been submitted by
the petitioner is not beyond or in addition to what they had already submitted on 12.12.2024, which
was the basis of passing of the earlier impugned orders dated 21.06.2024 and 09.10.2024; and
which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2025.

14. He has also argued that once the order dated 21.06.2024 was set aside by this Court vide
its judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Writ-C No.26063 of 2024, it was not open for
the authorities to revive the said order vide its impugned order dated 30.08.2025; and on this count
alone the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 is liable to be set aside.

15. He has also argued that the legal mala fides of the respondents are writ large right from the
inception; and as found by this Court while setting aside the earlier blacklisting order in its order
dated 28.07.2022 in Writ-C No.890 of 2022. He has relied on the observations of this Court in the
said judgment, where the Court had recorded that the impugned order of debarment, is a result of
"whimsical and arbitrary" exercise of power, while quashing the same. The impugned order speaks
volume of the wrong doings, intentionally and without a just cause and there being no reasonable
relation to the purpose of exercise of statutory power, which is a facet indicative of "Malice in
law".

16. He has forcefully submitted that once this Court vide its order dated 27.05.2025 had
permitted the petitioner to file a reply by 15.07.2025, after applying for the documents which was
discovered subsequently; it was incumbent upon the authorities to consider the reply dated
15.07.2025 and 14.08.2025.

17. However, since they were having grudge against the petitioner, since he had made
complaint in the month of February, 2022 before the Lokayukta and which has resulted in a
recommendation dated 19.09.2023, holding prima facie guilty, 6 Engineers, on 17 charges;
therefore, they never intended either to give an adequate opportunity of hearing or to consider
whatever reply the petitioner has been submitting. He has submitted that all the exercise was at the
behest of M/s A.M. Builders proprietor i.e. Shri Javed Khan and otherwise there was no
3 All. M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375
allegation/charge, except that of having submitted irregular experience certificate, which was
denied with proof on record by way of petitioner's reply dated 15.07.2025. However, no
consideration was given to the same.

18. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that adequate opportunity was
given to the petitioner and though he was asked to appear in person within a period of 3 days,
which is evident from the letter dated 11.08.2025; but he failed to do so and accordingly authorities
concerned had proceeded to pass an order on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner.

19. However, the learned Standing Counsel fairly admitted that apart from stating that the
reply dated 15.07.2025 and 14.08.2025, does not state any new defence but what was already stated
in their earlier reply dated 12.12.2024, no other consideration was given, in the impugned order.
For ready reference, the relevant extract of the order dated 30.08.2025 is being quoted:

"अतः मा० उच्ि न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में ररट याचिका सं0- 42927/2024 मै० सतीश िन्र
दीक्षक्षत बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व 4 अन्य में पाररत आदेश ददनांक 27.05.2025 एवं ररट याचिका सं0-
23063/2024 मैससथ सतीश िन्र दीक्षक्षत बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व 05 15 अन्य में पाररत आदेश ददनांक
27.05.2025 के समादर में नैसचगथक न्याय के दृजटटगत यािी मैससथ सतीश िन्र दीक्षक्षत, कॉन्रैक्टर को
अपना पक्ष रखने हेतु ददये गये अवसर के क्रम में यािी द्वारा प्रस्तुत ककये गये उत्तर ददनांक 15.07.2025 एवं
14.08.2025 में पुनः उन्हीं तथ्यों का उल्लेख ककया गया है, िोकक उनके द्वारा अपने पूवथ प्रेपषत उत्तर ददनांक
12.12.2024 ककया गया है। यािी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन में अनतररक्त रूप से कुछ बबन्दुओं पर असभकथन
ककया गया, िोकक इस प्रकरण से सम्बजन्धत/आच्छाददत नहीं है।

अतः मैससथ सतीश िन्र दीक्षक्षत, कॉन्रैक्टर, बदायूं द्वारा प्रस्तुत अभ्यावेदन में ककसी नवीन
तथ्य का उल्लेख न होने, उक्त प्रकरण के इतर िनपद पीलीभीत की ननपवदा सम्बन्धी प्रकरण पर मा०
लोकायुक्त की िााँि इत्यादद का उल्लेख ककये िाने, जिसकी इस प्रकरण में कोई प्रासंचगकता नहीं है, के
दृजटटगत ठेकेदार का उत्तर बलहीन एवं तकथहीन पाया गया।

अतः प्रकरण के सम्यक पविारोपरान्त मैससथ श्री सतीश िन्र दीक्षक्षत, ठेकेदार का उत्तर ददनांक
15.07.2025 एवं 14.08.2025 बलहीन पाये िाने के दृजटटगत, प्रकरण पर प्राप्त पवचध परामशथ एवं अचधशासी
असभयन्ता, ननमाथण खण्ड-2, लो०नन०पव०, बदायूं एवं अधीक्षण असभयन्ता, बदायूं-पीलीभीत वृत,
लो०नन०पव०, बरेली द्वारा ददये गये असभमत/संस्तुनत के आधार पर मा० न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेशों के
समादर में पूवथ पाररत डडबार आदेश ददनांक 21.06.2024 की नतचथ से वतथमान अवचध को िटाते हुए शेष
अवचध 09 माह 22 ददन (नतचथ 21.06.2026 तक) के सलए मै० सतीश िन्र दीक्षक्षत, ठेकेदार को ब्लैक
सलस्ट/डडबार ककये िाने के आदेश एतद् द्वारा पाररत ककये िाते हैं।

उक्त आदेश तत्काल रूप से प्रभावी होंगे"
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. As far as the confirmation of the order dated 21.06.2024 vide the impugned order dated
30.08.2025, is concerned the learned Standing Counsel do not dispute that the order dated
21.06.2024 was already set aside by this Court vide its order dated 27.05.2025 and therefore, this
Court finds that the same cannot be revived by the impugned order.

21. It is a settled law that even if an authority, has to proceed ex parte, it is incumbent upon it,
to take into account, the reply and documents on record, before passing of an order, which has not
been done in the present case, inspite of specific direction of this Court.

22. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order
dated 30.08.2025, has not only been passed, in non adherence to the directions given by this Court
vide its judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed in Writ-C No.23063 of 2024; but also has perpetuated
the illegality, which was made in the earlier proceedings, and was set at naught by this Court vide
its judgment and order dated 27.05.2025.

23. This Court also finds that vide impugned order dated 30.08.2025, the authorities have
confirmed the order dated 21.06.2024 which was already set aside vide judgment and order dated
27.05.2025; and for this reason also the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Issue No. II - Whether in the factual background and the directions by this Hon'ble High
Court, instance of legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power can be inferred.

Discussion & Conclusion

24. The learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that, the chronological order in which the
various orders have been passed by the authorities, for debarment of the petitioner's firm one after
another and this Court had found that the said orders were being passed not only in violation of the
principles of natural justice but also were "whimsical and arbitrary", is a deliberate act, in disregard
to the rights of the petitioner.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the legal mala fides and
colourable exercise of power is also evident from the fact that though this Court had directed that
the proceedings were to be concluded adhering to the principles of natural justice, the authorities
concerned in utter disregard to the same, has proceeded to confirm an order which was already set
aside by this Court, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

26. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel though had tried to defend the decision, on the
ground that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the order dated
30.08.2025 but could not demonstrate from the record that in spite of specific direction by this
Court, replies of the petitioner dated 15.02.2025 and 14.08.2025 were ever considered and on the
contrary a reply dated 12.12.2024 which was prior to the discoveries, was made the foundation.
The said act, is plausibly taken with an oblique or an indirect object, to defeat the claim of the
petitioners.
3 All. M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
377

27. It has also not been disputed that the Lokayukta had found the officials of the department
to be guilty on several counts for example one Shri D.K. Mishra the then Chief Engineer, Bareilly
Region, Bareilly, Public Works Department, Badaun and Executive Engineer Pilibhit (Finance)
Public Works Department, Bareilly were found to have misused their position for ulterior motive;
and similarly one Shri Harswaroop Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Badaun along with one
Shri M.M. Ansari, Chief Engineer, District Saharanpur, Construction Division-I etc. culpability
was found by the High Level Committee and recommendations were made in exercise of powers
under Section 12(5) of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1975.

28. On a pointed query to the learned Standing Counsel as to what action was taken on the
basis of the said recommendations of the Lokayukta and as to whether any FIR was lodged against
them, she could not state as to whether any action has been taken on the basis of the
recommendation dated 20.09.2023; and on the contrary we find that a vague show cause notice
dated 07.05.2024 was given, on a flimsy ground that an erroneous experience certificate was given
by the petitioner which is in violation of the instructions contained in clause 4.4A(b) for a work
which was awarded for the financial year 2018-19. In case a contract was awarded on the basis of
an erroneous experience certificate, the authorities was required to also take action against the
concerned officials, who had awarded the contract but the same was not done. The petitioner's
reply challenging the same and that after due verification by the concerned authorities, the
experience certificate was accepted, was neither contradicted nor accepted.

29. We find it necessary to observe that a State which is a welfare State is expected to uphold
the majesty of the rights enshrined under Part-3 of the Constitution of India; and any illegal or
colourable action, on part of the State or its agency viz. a viz. a citizen, is far too serious and
damaging to society. To meet the rival contention of the parties, we may also address the
distinction between "malice in fact" and "malice in law".

For the sake of brevity, without going into intrinsic details of the aforesaid two legal
propositions, we may just outline the difference between the same, in the following tabular form:

Malice in fact

Malice in law

1. Meaning

Malice in Fact (Actual Malice) means person acts with illwill, spite, hatred, or personal animosity towards another.
The wrongful act is motivated by a bad intention or desire to
harm a particular person. It is a wrongful act done with
knowledge of its illegality or with intention to cause
harm.

2. Proof

Malice in Fact must be specifically proved by showing
evidence of personal hostility, ill-will, or bad intention.
For malice in fact, the same has to be expressly pleaded,
alongwith the allegations in support thereof, and the
concerned person also has to be impleaded.

1. Meaning

Malice in Law (Legal Malice) refers to doing a wrongful act
intentionally without just cause or lawful excuse, even if there is no
personal hatred or ill-will against the person affected.

2. Proof

Malice in Law does not require proof of personal hatred. it is
presumed by law when a person intentionally commits an unlawful act
because Malice in law is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of
others, the conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a
depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights
of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts.

Viscount Haldane described Malice in law as follows in Shearer v.
Shields [[1914]А.С.808, 813]:
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias,
grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose.

The determination of a plea of mala fides involves two
questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an
oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is
contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a
valid exercise of administrative power."

Rajneesh Khajuria v. Wockhardt Ltd.

State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222:
1992 SCC (Cri) 192

* An action is said to be vitiated by malice in fact when the
same lacks good faith and is motivated by personal bias,
grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The
malice in fact needs to be pleaded, the party concerned
against whom malice in fact is alleged, needs to be
impleaded and an opportunity has to be given to the party so
impleaded, to respond to the allegations. The said allegations
have to be established before the Court.

"A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention
of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind;
he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may,
therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his
mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently."
Thus malice in its legal sense means malice such a may be assumed
from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause
excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause"

"legal malice" or "malice in law" means "something done without
lawful excuse". It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without
reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill
feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of
others."

HMT Ltd. v. Mudappa [(2007) 9 SCC 768]

State of A.P v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, (2003) 4 SCC 739]

*An Order or action can be said to be vitiated by malice in law in one
or more of the following circumstances:

(a) From doing of a wrongful act intentionally without any just
cause, or excuse, or without there being reasonable relation to the
purpose of exercise of statutory power. Rajneesh Khajuria (supra),
quoting from State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (supra)

(b) It is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes
of power by simulation or pretention of gaining legitimate goal. When
the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by consideration
outside those for the promotion of which the power is vested, the
Court calls it colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. State
of Punjab v. Gurdayal Singh

(c) It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others.
Kalabharti Advertising v. Hemant Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437

(d) It is an act taken with an oblique or indirect object.
Kalabharati Advertising (supra)

(e) Conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a
depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights
of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. Kalabharati
Advertising (supra)

(f) Passing an Order for unauthorized purpose. Kalabharati
Advertising (supra)

iii. Malice in law need not be pleaded and does not need proof. (State
of Punjab v. Gurdayal Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471). For malice in law,
intention is immaterial. (S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India
[(1979) 2 SCC 491)

30. In cognizance of the aforesaid distinction, we find that there is no necessity for specific
pleadings in cases where the admitted events and documents establishes a malice in law; and action
can be said to be vitiated by malice in law when the intention without a just cause or excuse
becomes writ large on the facts of the case i.e, when an act can be said to be done without any
lawful excuses.
3 All. M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
379

31. In the present case, when the debarment order was passed on the second occasion against
the petitioner, based on documents which were relied upon and the same being subsequent to the
point in time, when the reply was submitted by the petitioner; an inference may have been remotely
possible that the authorities misguided itself and relied upon the said subsequent discoveries, while
inflicting the petitioner with the debarment order for an advertent reason.

32. However, with this Court specifically fixed a time frame and permitted the petitioner to
seek those documents which were subsequent in time and thereafter fixed an outer time limit for
the petitioner to submit his reply, which he also did; then in the said circumstances, by not
adverting to the reply submitted by him, does not given any lawful excuse to the respondents.

33. The respondents by their action have clearly made the petitioner to suffer debarment
without any opportunity, by considering his explanation, which was required to be considered by
the respondent authorities and in doing so, the authorities have travelled beyond their authority in
utter disregard to the rights of the petitioner, which demonstrates the intent to manifest injury to the
petitioner.

34. In the aforesaid action, the petitioner inspite of having submitted a plausible explanation,
to a technical objection of the respondent authorities, i.e. assuming that the experience certificate
was faulty; and the authorities themselves have examined the said certificate, whereafter the
contract was granted to the petitioner, no consideration was made. There was no allegations of
insufficiency in performance of the contract or any financial irregularity.

35. We do not find anything in the show cause notices, as to whether, there was any deficiency
in the execution of the contract or financial irregularities, so that at such a belated stage, on
technical ground, especially after petitioner has already suffered the penalty period substantially,
cannot be permitted; and the impugned action of the respondents, also tilt the equity, in favour of
the petitioner.

36. Be that as it may be, 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.

37. In view of the aforesaid, we hold the entire proceedings is a classical case of a legal mala
fide and colourable exercise of power.

Issue No. III - Whether after repeated opportunities and directions when the authorities
have failed to consider the reply of the petitioner and legal mala fide being writ large, can the
matter be again relegated back to the authorities for fresh decision.
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Discussion & Conclusion

38. Learned counsel for the respondents had urged that no doubt that the earlier orders dated
21.06.2024 was set aside by this Court and there was specific directions and cut off dates, when the
documents/information was required to be given to the petitioner and consequently a reply was also
to be submitted, which was as a matter of fact was submitted; but the authorities assuming though
not admitting had not complied with the directions of this Court, by not giving consideration to the
reply dated 15.07.2025 and 14.08.2025, the matter may again be relegated to the authorities
concerned for fresh consideration.

39. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in reply to the aforesaid that he is a
contractor and has a fundamental right to carry out his profession or any trade or business as
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and on account of the fact that he has made
complaints against the erring higher officials of the Public Works Department, he has suffered the
consequences for the last eight years and repeated debarment orders being passed against him, has
resulted in loss of reputation and financial loss. He has submitted that in spite of the directions of
this Court, the authorities concerned have not considered the reply and accordingly after more than
eight years, the matter may not be relegated to the authorities for fresh consideration, especially in
the circumstances where legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power are writ large on the
facts of the present case, as also no action has been taken on the recommendation of the Lokayukt,
whereas the petitioner's firm, has been targetted.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. At this juncture, we may also refer gainfully to the decision of the Apex Court in
Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh and Ors.. Relevant paragraph nos. 8, 13,
14, 15 of the aforesaid judgment as quoted herein below:
3 All. M/s Satish Chandra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381

8. Further narration of facts would sadly indicate that, as the "First Season" with
multiple episodes of rejection orders followed by successive 'consider' and 'reconsider' directions
of the High Court reached nowhere, commencement of contempt proceedings seem to have only
opened up the "Second Season" of inconclusive directions for filing affidavits after affidavits.

........

13. Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not our laws, but the
way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies. We are not be mistaken as sermonising,
for such episodic disposal could feature even in the practice of Supreme Court. Our endeavour is to
ensure that we take notice of it and adopt course correction.

14. There is no doubt about the fact that the "consider jurisprudence", so routinely
adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is
counterproductive and harms the system.

15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow. The Constitutional or
statutory remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be
granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with
avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not matters of law, but of its working and practice.
Unlike law and its procedures, good practices that evolve over a period of time are far more
precious than written laws, as it is in this practice that we see acceptance and internalization of the
spirit of law. It is necessary to recognize, nurture and develop good practices which become habits.
These habits come from the shared belief, values and attitudes that breathe vitality into Rule of law.
Legal culture integrates collective beliefs, fostering habits. It is necessary and in fact compelling to
keep our remedies simple, effective and efficient."

43. The doctrine of colourable exercise of power clearly prescribed that even if a party has a
legal right, but it is being exercised in an improper or an illegal manner, the said action renders the
act invalid. This principle applies when an authority acts out side its scope. We also see reasons to
rely on the principle, that "What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly", which is also
the core of the aforementioned doctrine. 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.

44. 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.

45.