# M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1071
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 44710 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-wizitec-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53822
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1 All. M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1071

34.6 Segregated or threshold adjudication of preliminary objections is warranted only in
exceptional situations where a patent and apparent jurisdictional defect is discernible on the face of
the record.

34.7 Interlocutory or procedural orders passed in the course of summary proceedings
under Section 67 are not amenable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, unless such orders disclose a patent lack of jurisdiction or result in
manifest injustice.

35. The impugned orders disclose no jurisdictional error, illegality or procedural impropriety
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, held to be devoid of merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.

36. However, to serve the ends of justice, Respondent no.4-Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant
Collector, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar is directed to expeditiously conclude adjudication of
Case No.14775 of 2023 by passing reasoned and speaking final order considering all objections
including those on maintainability within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1071
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 44710 of 2025

M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the indefinite blacklisting order is legal and valid; whether the District Basic Education Officer was
competent to pass the blacklisting order in view of the Government Order dated 26.07.2024; and whether the
blacklisting order is vitiated for non-supply of material, non-consideration of the petitioner's replies, and failure
to specify the duration of debarment.

HEADNOTE
Administrative Law - Blacklisting/Debarment - Indefinite blacklisting - Petitioner blacklisted without
specification of period - Principles of natural justice - Replies submitted by petitioner not considered -
Material forming basis of decision not supplied - Government Order dated 26.07.2024 - Competent authority
- Authority issuing blacklisting order not competent - GeM contractual framework - Requirement to prepare
merit list of 504 candidates not part of original engagement. (E-5)
HELD:
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petitioner, a manpower outsourcing agency engaged under the GeM bid pursuant to Government Order dated
26.07.2024 for supply of ECCE Educators and Technical Instructors under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, was
placed under an indefinite blacklisting order by the District Basic Education Officer, allegedly for deficiencies in
performance and the selection process, despite the petitioner having submitted replies, and the scope of work
having been unilaterally expanded.
Debarment is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers or
contractors; however, debarment is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend
upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. An indefinite blacklisting order could not
be legally justified as it carried serious civil consequences. As blacklisting had serious civil consequences, the
show cause notice proposing blacklisting is required to specifically indicate such proposed action so as to put
the noticee to clear notice and enable an effective response.
Impugned blacklisting order was passed for an indefinite time period; the impugned order did not specify the
period of blacklisting and failed to refer to or consider the detailed replies and supporting documents
submitted by the petitioner. Absence of any document providing the basis for such extreme action and the
indefinite nature of the blacklisting order indicated arbitrariness and unfairness in action, rendering the
impugned order legally unsustainable, arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution.
The Government Order dated 26.07.2024 provided that discrepancies or complaints concerning the selection
process were to be placed before the District Magistrate, who was empowered to consider and decide
disputes related to the selection of candidates. The blacklisting order passed by the District Basic Education
Officer was bad for want of lawful authority, as the District Basic Education Officer, having put allegations on
the petitioner for wrong selection of candidates, could not be the authority to pass the order of blacklisting,
being a judge in his own cause.
The impugned order was quashed; the matter was remitted to the District Magistrate for fresh consideration
after affording fair opportunity of hearing; and the petitioner was permitted to participate in future tenders for
the stipulated period. [Paras 14, 16-17, 18-20, 23, 25, 26-28]

CASE LAW CITED
M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (1975) 1 SCC 70;
Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105;
Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731;
Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 804

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950 ;
Government Order dated 26.07.2024 (Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan);

List of Keyword
Blacklisting; Indefinite debarment; Civil consequences; Natural justice; Competent authority; Arbitrariness;
Proportionality; Non-consideration of reply; Public contracts; Outsourcing agency; GeM portal; Samagra
Shiksha Abhiyan.

CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by District Basic Education Officer.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Narendra Singh
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Charurvedi, J.)
1 All. M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1073

1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Yadav, learned advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions, including a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned indefinite blacklisting order bearing Letter No.
SSA/J.S.P./12226-34/2025-26 dated 26.11.2025 as well as the letter bearing No. SSA/District
Resource Training/9852-60/2025-26 dated 29.09.2025, issued by Respondent No. 4, as the letter
expands the scope of work of the petitioner and runs contrary to the Government Order dated
26.07.2024, and further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents, jointly and severally, to forthwith reinstate and restore the contract awarded to the
petitioner for supply of 168 ECCE Educators and 40 Technical Instructors in District Shahjahanpur
under Bid No.GEM/2025B5794364, to remove the petitioner?s name from the blacklist maintained
on the GeM portal and from all records of the State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities, to permit
the petitioner to participate in future tenders and continue the existing contract without reference to
the impugned blacklisting order.

3. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of providing manpower and outsourcing
services to various government departments, and it challenges certain administrative actions taken
by the respondents under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, culminating in the blacklisting order dated
26.11.2025, which does not specify the period for which the petitioner company has been
blacklisted.

4. The record indicates that the State Government issued Government Order No. 685099/178/2024 (Basic Education) dated 26.07.2024 governing contractual engagements under the
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. Pursuant thereto, a GeM bid bearing No. GEM/2025/B/5794364 was
floated on 11.01.2025 along with the Additional Terms and Conditions. The petitioner participated
in the said bid process and was selected for execution of training-related work.

5. In furtherance thereof, Respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 16.06.2025, required
the petitioner to publish an advertisement on the Seva Yojna portal for engagement of 168 ECCE
Educators. Thereafter, vide communication dated 29.09.2025, Respondent No. 4 called upon the
petitioner to prepare a merit-wise list of 504 candidates after verification of their original
documents, while also raising certain issues with regard to performance. The petitioner submitted
its response to the said communication on 21.10.2025.

6. Further communications were issued by Respondent No. 4 on 28.10.2025 and 31.10.2025,
to which the petitioner submitted replies on the respective dates along with supporting material.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 placing petitioner
under blacklisting, without even specifying the duration thereof.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.11.2025
placing the petitioner under blacklisting is arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural
justice, hence unsustainable in law. He contends that the order does not specify the period of
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
blacklisting and, therefore, operates as an indefinite and open-ended debarment, which is
impermissible in law. Reliance was placed on settled legal principles that blacklisting has serious
civil consequences and must be for a defined duration supported by reasons.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the actions preceding the impugned order were dehors
the government order dated 26.07.2024, the bid conditions, and the additional terms and conditions.
He contends that the direction issued on 29.09.2025, requiring preparation of a merit list of 504
candidates after verification of original documents amounted to an unilateral expansion of the
scope of work, which was neither contemplated under the contractual framework nor part of the
original engagement and non-compliance with such an extraneous requirement could not have been
treated as a breach of contract.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contends that despite the petitioner having
submitted detailed replies on 21.10.2025, 28.10.2025, and 31.10.2025, along with supporting
materials, the same were neither considered nor dealt with in the impugned order. No document
forming the basis of the blacklisting was supplied to the petitioner prior to passing of the
blacklisting order. The impugned order itself discloses that the replies submitted by the petitioner
were not considered, as the defence taken by the petitioner finds no mention therein.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned action
and submits that the petitioner failed to perform its contractual obligations, resulting in
administrative difficulties in the implementation of the scheme. He further contends that repeated
deficiencies were noticed in the petitioner?s performance, particularly in relation to the engagement
and verification process of personnel, which necessitated corrective directions by Respondent No.4.

11. Learned counsel submits that sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner
through multiple communications dated 29.09.2025, 28.10.2025, and 31.10.2025 to explain its
conduct, and that the petitioner had submitted replies thereto. He further contends that blacklisting
is an administrative measure taken to protect public interest and to prevent engagement of agencies
whose performance is found to be unsatisfactory. Learned counsel argued that the decision to
blacklist the petitioner was taken after due consideration of the material on record.

Respondent No.4 had the authority, under the GeM Incident Management Policy, to pass an
order of indefinite blacklisting, and whether the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 is vitiated for
arbitrariness in action and also for it being in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch
as the material forming the basis of the decision was not supplied, the petitioner?s submissions
were not considered, and the order fails to specify the duration of blacklisting.

13. This Court now examines the facts on record, the submissions advanced by the learned
advocates for the parties, and the settled legal position as laid down in the judgments cited, for the
purpose of answering the aforesaid issues.

14. On a careful examination of records, including the communications exchanged between
the parties, the replies submitted by the petitioner, and the contents of the impugned order, it is
evident that blacklisting order is passed for indefinite time period. The impugned order does not
1 All. M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1075
specify the period of blacklisting and failed to refer or consider the detailed replies and supporting
documents submitted by the petitioner. It also appears from records that the requirement to prepare
a merit list of 504 candidates after verification of original documents was not in the original
engagement terms.

15. Supreme court in M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
& Anr. (1975) 1 SCC 70, has held that the purpose of serving a show cause notice is giving a
person opportunity to meet the allegations which were the basis for the authority who was
contemplating blacklisting. The judgment observes that:

"12. Under Article 298 of the Constitution the executive power of the Union and the State
shall extend to the carrying on of any trade and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property
and the making of contracts for any purpose. The State can carry on executive function by making
a law or without making a law. The exercise of such powers and functions in trade by the State is
subject to Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws. Equality of opportunity should apply to matters of public contracts. The
State has the right to trade. The State has there the duty to observe equality. An ordinary individual
can choose not to deal with any person. The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by
discrimination. The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of
opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter
into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person
who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a
legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be
supported by legality.

... ...?

20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of
entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a
disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an
objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given
an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist."

16. The Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and
Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105, has dealt with the question of law pertaining to the form and content of
show cause notice, that is required to be served, before deciding as to whether the noticee is to be
blacklisted or not and held that a show cause notice proposing blacklisting must specifically
indicate such proposed action, as blacklisting entails serious civil consequences and the affected
party must be put to clear notice to enable an effective response.

17. Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services (Supra) observed that:

"16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show
cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification.
The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale
behind it. With blacklisting many civil and/ or evil consequences follow. It is described as ?civil
death? of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in
nature and debars such a person from participating in Government Tenders which means
precluding him from the award of Government contracts."

18. The Apex Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom
Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, (2014) 14 SCC 731, has observed that:

"25. 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."

19. The Supreme Court has followed the same principle in Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 804, and held that the show cause notice
must clearly indicate that the contemplated action is blacklisting. The Court observed that:

"12. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, there may have been no need to go into the
question of the duration of the blacklisting, but for the arguments addressed before us. An order of
blacklisting operates to the prejudice of a commercial person not only in praesenti but also puts a
taint which attaches far beyond and may well spell the death knell of the organisation/institution
for all times to come described as a civil death. The repercussions on the appellant were clearly
spelt out by it in the representations as also in the writ petition, including the consequences under
the Rajasthan tender, where it stood debarred expressly because of the present impugned order.
The possibility always remains that if a proper show-cause notice had been given and the reply
furnished would have been considered in accordance with law, even if the respondents decided to
blacklist the appellant, entirely different considerations may have prevailed in their minds
especially with regard to the duration."

20. In the judgement rendered in Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court
has reiterated the same principle and further observed that:

"13. This Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL [Kulja
Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731] , despite declining to
interfere with an order of blacklisting, but noticing that an order of permanent debarment was
unjustified, observed : (SCC p. 744, para 28)

"28.2. Secondly, because while determining the period for which the blacklisting should
be effective the respondent Corporation may for the sake of objectivity and transparency formulate
broad guidelines to be followed in such cases. Different periods of debarment depending upon the
gravity of the offences, violations and breaches may be prescribed by such guidelines. While it may
not be possible to exhaustively enumerate all types of offences and acts of misdemeanour, or
1 All. M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1077
violations of contractual obligations by a contractor, the respondent Corporation may do so as far
as possible to reduce if not totally eliminate arbitrariness in the exercise of the power vested in it
and inspire confidence in the fairness of the order which the competent authority may pass against
a defaulting contractor."

21. After perusal of records, hearing counsel for parties and having examined the settled legal
position as above, we proceed to apply the same to the facts of the present case.

22. The respondents assert that blacklisting was taken in public interest, but absence of any
document to provide basis for such extreme action, failure to consider petitioner?s defense, and
indefinite nature of the blacklisting order indicates towards the arbitrariness and unfairness in
action, which cannot be permitted in law. The blacklisting order impugned in the petition does not
disclose any duration and therefore the order is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed as
arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

23. Debarment has been recognized as a method of disciplining deviant suppliers, however, an
order of debarment can never be for an indefinite period as it is in the present case. Therefore, in
the light of settled legal principles, the Court must balance the need to protect public interest with
procedural fairness, ensuring that administrative measures such as blacklisting are neither
excessively punitive nor devoid of reasoned legal justification. Indefinite blacklisting order cannot
be legally justified as it carries serious civil consequences and therefore, it must be based on clear
reasons, a defined duration, and adherence to principles of natural justice. The impugned order is
against the principle of law established by the Supreme Court in Kulja industries ltd. (supra) and
Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra).

24. Another significant question for consideration is whether the authority that issued the
blacklisting order was competent to do so. The Government Order dated 26.07.2024 makes the
provision that any discrepancy or complaint concerning the selection process must be submitted to
the District Magistrate through the District Basic Education Officer and this makes it indicative of a
fact that the District Magistrate is empowered to consider and decide disputes related to the
selection of candidates. The dispute started with the fact that there were complaints regarding
selection of candidates and, therefore, it was appropriate that the District Magistrate decided the
dispute regarding allegations against the petitioner, which led to the blacklisting order. In our
considered view the District Basic Education Officer, having put allegation on the petitioner for
wrong selection of candidates cannot be the authority to pass the order for blacklisting as he cannot
be judge in his own cause.

25. In the present case, the impugned blacklisting order was issued by Respondent No.4, who,
in our considered view, in the light of the Government Order, does not possess the authority to
adjudicate such issues. The District Basic Education Officer?s role is limited to forwarding
complaints to the District Magistrate, who is the designated as decision-making authority.
Therefore, the blacklisting order passed by the District Basic Education Officer is bad for want of
lawful authority and hence, deserves to be quashed.
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, the impugned order
dated 26.11.2025 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and the writ petition is partly
allowed to that extent.

27. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur for fresh consideration in
accordance with law, after affording petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing. The petitioner is
directed to submit a fresh representation to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur raising all the
grounds on the point of letter dated 29.09.2025 along with a certified copy of this order within four
weeks from today. In the event, petitioner moves such a representation, as directed hereinabove, the
District Magistrate concerned shall pass a reasoned order on the letter and decide the issue of
blacklisting and all ancillary issues within a further period of four weeks.

28. It is further provided that for a period of eight weeks or till decision is taken by the District
Magistrate, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall be entitled to participate in future tenders.

29. No order at to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1078
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002800 of 2001

Prahlad Gond ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Co-operative Tribunal Lko & Ors....Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether a writ petition in the nature of certiorari will lie against a Cooperative Society or it comes within the
meaning of the words 'other Authority' occurring in Article 226 of the Constitution?

Headnotes
A. Writ Law - Maintainability of writ petition - Constitution of India: Article 12, 226 - The writ
petition in the nature of certiorari will lie against a Co-operative Society only when such Society
has ingredient of an 'Authority' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and not
otherwise. The following guidelines are culled out from the various decisions of the Supreme Court:-
1. The constitution of the Managing Body/Committee constitutes the functionaries of the Government.
2. There is an existence of deep and pervasive control of the management and policies of the Co-operative
Society by the Government.
3. The function of the Co-operative Society is of public importance and closely related to the Governmental
functions. 4. The financial control is by the Government or it provides financial aid controlling its affairs.
5. The violation of statutory rules applicable to the Society in regard to the service matters of its employees,
and
6. Statutory violations or non-compliance of it by an authority under the Act. (Para 13)