# Shankar & Ors v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 155
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-20
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 5074 of 1987
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shankar-ors-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-sultanpur-ors-54355
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

4 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors.
155
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ B No. 5074 of 1987

Shankar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a compromise recorded under Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
1954 could be held binding upon tenure holders who were not parties to the compromise and
whose objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were
pending consideration; and Whether a compromise disputed by affected parties and alleged to
have been obtained on blank papers without notice could be sustained in law.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, s.9-A(2), s.11 - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
1954 - r.25-A - Petitioners, Shanker and Jagdish, filed objections under Section 9-A(2) claiming
co-tenure rights in disputed holdings - Chunni, father of petitioners along with Pancham and
Ram Ghulam, filed separate objections claiming rights as co-tenure holders and further sought
deletion of the names of Ram Prasad, Ram Dev and Sukh Dev from the record of rights -
Assistant Consolidation Officer recorded a compromise and decided the objections in terms
thereof - Petitioners challenged the compromise on the ground that they were not parties to
such compromise, nor had they any notice of such compromise being reached between one set
of objectors and the opposite parties and hence the direction issued for recording the names of
Ram Prasad, Ram Dev and Sukh Dev as co-tenure holders was illegal - It was further pleaded
that signatures/thumb impressions had been obtained on blank papers on the representation
that the matter would be referred to a higher authority - Gram Pradhan filed an affidavit
disputing the compromise and stating that no compromise had been recorded in his presence -
Appeals and revision dismissed by the consolidation authorities - Challenge in writ jurisdiction -
Justification:

Held: Rule 25-A contemplates that the terms of conciliation shall be reduced into writing in the presence of at
least two members of the Consolidation Committee, shall be read over to the parties concerned and thereafter
their signatures or thumb impressions shall be obtained - No ex parte order or order in default can be passed
by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Admittedly, there were no signatures or thumb impressions of petitioners, Shanker and Jagdish, on the
compromise document though their objections in respect of the same holdings were pending consideration -
Such compromise could not be binding upon Shanker and Jagdish - Gram Pradhan stated in his affidavit that
the alleged agreement was a forged document and that no compromise terms were read out and explained -
Compromise was not the one as contemplated under Rule 25-A because two petitioners, Shanker and Jagdish,
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were not parties to the compromise and as such the compromise order could not have brushed aside their
objections. If there are parties who have filed their objections, then in law all such parties have to be
signatories to the compromise, to claim a valid enforceable conciliation. Merely because the father had signed
the document of compromise, though he disputed it, the sons cannot be held to be bound by the same.
Court held that the findings based upon the document, the veracity of which was disputed by the parties,
could not have been arrived at unless and until the document stood proved - If the parties said that they had
signed blank sheets of paper, and were given the impression that those papers shall be used to make a
reference and in the event, instead of making a reference to a higher authority, those papers formed a
compromise, it would be presumable that their hands did not accompany their minds, to wit, they had never
intended to reach a compromise. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not have presumed the terms
and conditions to be justified only in order to uphold a compromise, once the compromise itself stood
seriously disputed - Also, Settlement Officer, Consolidation did not record any finding regarding service of
notice and also did not record any finding as to how, when there was no service of notice, a compromise
could be taken to have been read out to the parties - Findings regarding the factum of co-tenure holdership
could have been reached by the Settlement Officer only after discussing the case and hearing the parties on
merits afresh instead of resting his findings on a disputed compromise document - Orders passed by the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation held unsustainable - Writ petition
allowed - Orders dated 08.02.1982 and 13.04.1987 quashed - Objections restored for decision on merits after
affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties. (E-5)
[Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]
CASE LAW CITED
Ram Deo and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, 1996 (Suppl) RD 209;
Bhooley v. Anjeet, 2013 (121) RD 532;
Vijay Pal Singh @ Brija Raj Singh and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2014 (122) RD 720;
Smt. Basmati v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, 2019 (145) RD 832.

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953;
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.
List of Keywords
Compromise; Conciliation; Rule 25-A; Notice; Service of notice; Blank paper signatures; Valid compromise;
Consolidation proceedings; Co-tenure holder; Objection under Section 9-A(2); Gram Pradhan affidavit; Binding
effect of compromise; Minor's interest; Settlement Officer Consolidation; Deputy Director of Consolidation.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the orders dated 08.02.1982 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, 31.08.1985 passed by the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation and 13.04.1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur
upholding the compromise recorded in consolidation proceedings.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:S.K. Mehrotra, Balram Yadava, Purnima Upadhyay.
Advs. for the Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel, Bajrang Bahadur Singh, G.D. Pandey, Sunil Kumar Singh,
Vivek Kumar Dwivedi.
4 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors.
157
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Balram Yadava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bajrang Bahadur
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioners before this Court have seriously questioned the orders passed by, Assistant
Consolidation Officer dated 08.02.1982, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 31st August, 1985
as well as order passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sultanpur dated 13th April, 1987
whereby their appeal as well as revision have come to be rejected upholding the compromise order
passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 8th February, 1982.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Shanker and Jagdish
had filed objections under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 setting
up their claim of share by virtue of sale deed executed by original tenure holder dated 30th
December, 1978 in respect of plot nos. 727, 1046, 1093, 1094, 1095 and 1096 situate in village
Hinduwabad, Pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. Thus in short their names were
to be recorded as co-tenure holder in respect of land in question.

4. Yet another objection was filed by one Chunni who happened to be father of Shanker and
Jagdish, one Pancham and Ram Ghulam, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 respectively under Section 9A (2)
of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and claimed to have right as a co tenure holders of Jagdish
S/o Chunni and Suresh and so also Dalsingar and Shankar with further direction that respondent
nos. 7 and 8, and 9 namely, Ram Prasad, Ram Dev, Sukh Dev, now represented by their heirs in
this petition, to be deleted from the records of rights of the land in question .

5. Further Ram Prasad, Ram Dev and Sukh Dev were claimed to be not entitled to any right in
respect of land in question . It was claimed by the original respondents now substituted by the heirs
to have had reached between amongst Chunni, Ramghulam, Bansi Lal, Pancham, Ram Prasad,
Ram Dev and Sukh Dev by virtue of which in respect of Khata No. 367 and 315, Ram Prasad Ram
Dev and Sukh Dev, the original opposite parties in the objection were directed to be having 1/6th
share each and 1/8th share of Chunni, Pancham, Ramghulam and Dalsingar each and objections of
others were prayed to be rejected. This document of compromise allegedly reached between the
parties on 8th February, 1982 was signed by Chunni Pancham, Dalsingar and Ramghulam, Ram
Prasad Ram Dev and Sukh Dev, Gram Pradhan Mahabir Singh and Ram Ekbal, member of
Consolidation Committee. The ACO passed the order in terms of compromise on 08th February,
1982 itself. However, said compromise came to be challenged in appeal by Ram Ghulam ,
Pancham Chunni on one hand under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 and
Shanker and Jagdish on the other hand under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953. In both the appeals a common ground was taken that parties had never reached to any
compromise whatsoever. In the circumstances plea was taken that Assistant Consolidation Officer
had got signatures on blank-sheet of paper of the appellants that he would make a reference before
higher Consolidation authority and they will get justice but wholly illegally he got Ram Prasad
Ram Dev, Sukh Dev S/o Jiu Rakhan co-tenureholder in compromise got written on blanksheet
paper in h appeal filed by Chunni.
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. In so far as the appeal filed by Shankar and Jagdish is concerned, a plea was taken that they
were not party to such compromise, nor they had any notice of such compromise being reached
between one set of objectors and opposite parties and hence direction issued for recording the name
of three persons Ram Prasad, Ram Dev and Sukh Dev as co-tenure holder was absolutely
unjustified illegal and void order . Both the appeals were tagged and heard together by Settlement
Officer Consolidation .

7. The Pradhan Mahabir Singh also filed an affidavit in the Court of appeal before Settlement
Officer, Consolidation on 16th August, 1982 that Assistant Consolidation Officer had obtained
signatures on blank-sheet of paper with this understanding that he would refer the matter to higher
consolidation authority and that he would have to appear before Consolidation Officer. It was
stated in the affidavit that alleged agreement was forged document and unsustainable in law. He
further claimed in the affidavit that no compromise terms were read out and explained. This
affidavit is part of the record as annexure 7 to the petition. The Consolidation Officer proceeded to
decide both the appeals by holding that Chunni could not deny his thumb impression on the
compromise document and hence compromise cannot be disbelieved and since parties had agreed
to accept Ram Prasad and others to be co-tenure holder, there was nothing passed in the order of
Assistant Consolidation Officer on same terms and Deputy Director of Consolidation affirm and
order of Settlement officer of and hence petitioners are before this Court.

8. Two fold arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that:

(i) one set of objectors under Section 9-A(2) of the U.p. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953, namely, Jagdish and Shanker wanted their objections to be heard and decided and were
admittedly not party to the compromise, compromise reached between their father and other
parties, respondents to the objectors could not have been held binding upon them.

(ii) Parties having claimed that they were not served with notice of the compromise and
that they were not heard in the matter, Assistant Consolidation Officer was not justified in rejecting
the objection filed by Shanker and Jagdish and thus Settlement Officer, Consolation manifestly
erred in rejecting the appeal without meeting the point regarding notice and the point of binding
effect of compromise within petitioners Shanker and Jagdish being not party to the compromise.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that Deputy Director of Consolidation also
fell in error of law in affirming the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation without meeting those
very points, inasmuch as, findings returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on
surmises and conjectures .

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Ram Deo and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti 1996 (Suppl) 209,
Bhooley v. Anjeet, 2013 (121) RD 532, Vijay Pal Singh @ Brija Raj Singh and Another v. DDC
2014(122) RD 720,and Smt. Basmati v. DDC and Others, 2019 (145) RD 832.

11. Meeting the above arguments, learned counsel for the authority/respondents submitted that
there was no conflicting interest between petitioners Shanker and Jagdish where their father
4 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors.
159
Chunni, uncle Pancham and Ram Ghulam who were other objectors under Section 9-A(2) of the
Act, 1953, they had reached to a compromise while Shanker was still minor and so merely for
Jagdish was not heard in the matter, it would not vitiate compromise . It is further submitted that
parties had full notice of the compromise being entered and so compromise having been reached in
terms of Rule 25-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, there was no occasion to
prefer the appeal against compromise. He has also asserted that blank paper or paper or in black
and white if bore signatures and thumb impression, then validity of document would be presumed,
more especially in the circumstances when it bore signature of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the
Pradhan of Village and a member of the Consolidation Committee.

12. He has taken the Court to the relevant finding part of the order of the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation as well of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and asserted that findings are not
vitiated in law, nor there is any manifest error of law or the fact. In the circumstances, therefore if
there was no error apparent on the face of record, this Court may not issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is sought to be urged that once
findings of fact have been arrived by Consolidation authorities in their respective orders, merely
because, this Court may arrive at different conclusion reading down papers and appreciating them,
it would not be proper to issue writ of certiorari.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the
point that emerge for consideration of this Court is as to whether compromise reached amongst the
parties in the court of Assistant Consolidation Officer was sustainable in the face of a fact that
notice of which was absolutely disputed by the tenure holders who had stakes in the matter and
who had denied the claim of sons of Jiu Rakhan and whether a mere format being fulfilled as
prescribed by Rule 25-A would suffice to hold compromise to be valid even it is disputed by
affected parties. In order to reach out to the conclusion to find answer to the above question, I
proceed first to examine Rule 25A of Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 . Rule 25A of 1954
Rules are reproduced hereunder:

[25A. Sections 9-A, 9-B and 9-C. - (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, as far
as possible, deal with all the objections filed by a tenure holder with regard to matters referred to in
clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A and sub-section (1) of Section 9-B in village itself. In
deciding disputes on the basis of conciliation in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 9-A, he shall
record the terms of conciliation in the presence of at least two members of the Consolidation
Committee of the village. These terms shall then be read over to the parties concerned and their
signatures or thumb impressions obtained. The members of the Consolidation Committee present
shall also sign the terms of conciliation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall then pass orders
deciding the dispute in terms of conciliation specifying the precise entries to be made in the
records. Details of the operative part of the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer
shall be noted in the Misilbandregister. No ex parte order or orders in default shall be passed by the
Assistant Consolidation Officer.

(2) In all cases in which the Assistant Consolidation Officer sends a report, under the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 9-A, or sub-section (1) of Section 9-B to the Consolidation
Officer for disposal, he may fix a date and place for the disposal of the cases by the Consolidation
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer and communicate the same to the parties present before him and issue notices in C.H. Form
6-A to the parties not so present. The report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in such cases
clearly brings out the points in dispute between the parties and the efforts made by him to reconcile
them.]

14. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rules following legal position emerges to maintain
compromise:

(i) The terms of conciliation in presence of at-least two members of the Consolidation
Committee of village shall be reduced in writing.

(ii) The terms and conditions reached between /amongst the parties concerned shall be
read out to the parties and then their thumb impression/signature shall be obtained .

(iii) Two members of Consolidation Committee would sign the terms of conciliation.

(iv) The Assistant Consolidation Officer then would be deciding the dispute in terms of
Conciliation reached.

(v) No ex parte order or order in default shall be passed by ACO, the proposal made by
ACO shall be in the form of the report of Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) and then
Consolidation Officer will be passing final order on the basis of compromise.

15. Applying the above tests to the document of compromise, that has been brought on record
as annexure 3 to the petition, I find that it clearly records the name of Chunni, Pancham, Dalsingar,
Ramghulam, Ram Prasad, Sukh Dev, Ram Dev on one side as signatories while Gram Pradhan of
the village Mahabir Singh of village and Ram Ekbal, member of Consolidation committee on the
the other side.

16. Admittedly, there is no signatures/thumb impression of Shanker and Jagdish, who had
filed their objection and that was also pending consideration in respect of same holdings with a
prayer that they be recorded as a co-tenure holder . The compromise document states that other
objections are dismissed ,so naturally this compromise cannot be binding under any circumstances
upon Shanker and Jagdish. Still further, I notice that Gram Pradhan of village Mahabir Singh also
denied his signatures by filing an affidavit before Settlement Officer Consolidation on 16.8.1982
and asserted that there was no such agreement reached between /amongst the parties and that
compromise was forged document. So technically, compromise was not the one as contemplated
under Rule 25-A because those two petitioners Shanker and Jagdish who were not parties to the
compromise, so the compromise order could not have brushed aside their objections.

17. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it has been clearly averred that the Gram Pradhan
denied of any compromise being reached between the parties and claimed that terms of
compromise ever read out to him. There is not denial as such of these averments made in paragraph
10 to the petition. Paragraph 10 to the writ petition runs as under: " That before the appellate court
an affidavit was also filed by Mahavir Singh, Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha stating that no
4 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur & Ors.
161
compromise had taken place regarding the above property in dispute and the Assistant
Consolidation Officer had obtained signatures of the contesting parties on a blank paper telling
them that the above dispute would be referred to the Consolidation Officer for decision and the
parties will be informed about the date of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer by
notice. It was further stated that the above compromise was absolutely fictitious and no
compromise had been recorded in his presence. A certified copy of the above affidavit is annexed
here to Annexure No.7"

18. In the order passed Settlement Officer, Consolidation since Chunnu, Pancham,
Ramghulam had stated in appeal that ACO got their signatures on the blank-sheet of paper, he
arrived at conclusion that signatures had not been denied upon a compromise and hence
compromise was valid. He has gone on merit to discuss the share of the respective parties to arrive
at conclusion that compromise was correctly drawn and further held that Chunnu, Pancham,
Dalsingar and Ramghulam having admitted co tenure-holdership of Ram Prashad etc. there was
nothing wrong in the order.

19. In my considered view, the findings based upon the document, veracity of which
was disputed by parties, could not have been arrived unless and until, the document stood
proved. If the parties said that they had signed blank-sheet of paper, and were given the
impression that those papers shall be used to make a reference and in the event instead of
making reference to a higher authority, those papers formed a compromise, it would be
presumable that their hands did not accompany their mind, to wit, they had never intended
to reach to a compromise. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not have presumed
the terms and conditions to be justified one only in order to uphold a compromise, once the
compromise itself stood seriously disputed. There is no recital contained in the any part in
the entire order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation that gram Pradhan had himself
disputed the compromise and this statement Consolidation was not worth belief . The
Settlement Officer, Consolidation has also not recorded any finding regarding service of
notice and also failed to record any finding as to when there was no service of notice, how a
compromise be taken to have been read out to the parties.

20. The conflict of interest or no conflict of interest , if there are parties who have
filed their objections, then in law all such parties have to be signatories to the compromise,
to claim a valid enforceable concilliation. Merely because father had signed the document
of compromise though he disputed, son cannot be held to be bound by the same. A plea
taken that Shanker and Jagdish had also only prayed that their names to be recorded as cotenure holders could not have been taken to mean that they had accepted sons of Jiu
Rakhan also as co-tenure holders. All these findings regarding factum of co-tenureholdership could have been reached by Settlement Officer only after discussing the case
and hearing the parties on merits afresh instead of resting his findings on a disputed
compromise document.

21. In view of above, therefore, it is difficult to accept the findings arrived at by
Settlement Officer , Consolidation in rejecting the appeals.
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. In the matter of Ram Deo and Others (supra) the Court held that merely because
minor was a party, if no guardian was appointed to take care of his interest such
compromise would not be held binding upon him. The two members of Consolidation
Committee also required to sign the document, but Pradhan in this case having disputed the
compromise, it was bound to be held not tenable in view of Rule 25-A of 1954 Rules.

23. In the case of Vijay Pal Singh @ Brij Raj Singh and Another (supra) the Court has
categorically held that the father cannot enter into compromise on behalf of the minor son.

24. In the case of Bhooley (supra), it was held that notice to the parties was first to be
made at the initial stage and then only any concilliation can be struck. Thus stage under
Rule 25 A would come later but herein this case, there is no on record to demonstrate that
notices were ever issued to the petitioners before compromise could be reduced to writing.

25. In the case of Smt. Basmati (supra), there was an issue of joint tenure holdership
with certain shares and hence it was held that merely on the basis of compromise rights
would not have been accepted were it did not accept in law. Herein this case rights since
taken objection was that respondent no. 7 to 9 clearly heirs of Late Jio Lakhan, the same
could not have been said to have been valid except in compromise, in the circumstances
when it was pleaded that no such compromise was reached.

26. In view of above legal position, the order passed by Settlement Officer,
Consolidation is held also unsustainable. Since I am not upholding the order of
Settlement Officer Consolidation, there is no point in upholding the order of
affirmation passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, since learned
Advocate appearing for the respondent has placed finding part of the order of Deputy
Director, Consolidation, I proceed to examine the same. I find that Deputy Director of
Consolidation has affirmed the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation also on the
ground that father of the Shanker and Jagdish, namely, Chunni had signed the document
of compromise. The Deputy Director Consolidation thus proceeded to assume that
compromise was valid in view of findings returned by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation. I have already held that order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was
unsustainable, and therefore, there is no reason to uphold the findings returned by the
Deputy Director, Consolidation.

27. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by
Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 8.2.1982 and the order of Deputy Director
Consolidation dated 13.4.1987 are hereby quashed. The objections of the parties stands
restored at the level of Consolidation Officer to be decided on merits. Since the matter
is old one, parties may, if they so desire, reach to conciliation agreement or may
contest the matter on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation
Officer within three weeks from today and the Consolidation Officer shall be disposing
of the objections `after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties within next
three months.
----------
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