# V-Marc India Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 557
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 35310 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-marc-india-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52894
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioners , homebuyers
in the Knights Court project by Jaiprakash
associates Ltd. filed petitions due to delay
in possession of their flats-The UPRERA
had earlier directed the builder to either
hand over possession within 45 days or
refund the amount with interest-Due to
non-compliance,
recovery
certificates
were
issued-Subsequently
the
builder
entered insolvency proceedings under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC),

## Text

1 All. V-Marc India Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 557
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 35310 of 2024
With
Writ-C No. 32047 of 2024

V-Marc India Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-V-Marc India Ltd. challenged
an order dated 10.10.2024 issued by the
Superintending
Engineer(Material
Mgmt-I)
Vidhyut
Vitran
Nigam
Ltd.
which blacklisted the company and
imposed
other
penalties,
including
contract termination-order was passed
without providing a copy of the threemember committee report which formed
the basis of the decision-Held, The three
-member committee report should have
been provided to the petitioner, and an
opportunity to respond should have
been
given
before
issuing
the
blacklisting
order-failure
to
do
so
violated the principles of natural justiceblacklisting is a harsh and stringent
penalty that should be imposed only in
exceptional cases, authorities should not
misuse it for extraneous reasons-Hence,
the impugned order dated 10.10.2024
was
quashed-The
authority
must
conduct a fresh hearing within two
months and pass a reasoned order-Until
then,
the
petitioner
will
not
be
considered
blacklisted
and
can
participate in government tenders.

The writ petitions are disposed of. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi and Mr.
Saket Singh, learned Senior Advocates
assisted by Mr. Mrinal Bharti, Mr.
Ravikant Sharma, Mr. Manish Shekhari,
Ms. Anisha Mahajan and Mr. Krishna
Gopal, learned Advocates appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State
and Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited.

2. These are the writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by
the order dated October 10, 2024 passed by
the
respondent
No.4/Superintending
Engineer
(Material
Management-I),
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Urja,
Victoria Park, Meerut.

3. Upon hearing counsel appearing on
behalf of both the parties, we find that a
three member committee, after granting an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
gave a recommendation to the authority
concerned that passed the impugned order.
The authority concerned without providing
a copy of report of the three member
committee passed the final order of
blacklisting and other penalties including
the termination of the contract.

4. We are of the view that the report of
the three member committee should have
been provided to the petitioner and another
opportunity of hearing should have been
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
granted to the petitioner after being
confronted
with
the
three
member
committee report. As the same was not
done, we are of the view that the principles
of natural justice have been violated.

5. In light of the same, without going
into the merits of the case, we quash and
set aside the impugned order dated October
10, 2024 with a direction upon the
authority concerned to grant an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter,
pass a reasoned order. The entire process
should be completed within a period of two
months from date. We make it clear that no
adjournment shall be granted to the
petitioner.

6.
In
the
meantime,
since
the
impugned order has been quashed and set
aside, the petitioner shall not be considered
to be blacklisted and it may participate in
Government's tender, in accordance with
law.

7. A note of caution is also required to
be provided herein. The judgements of the
Supreme Court and this Court have laid
down the law that the punishment of
blacklisting is required to be imposed upon
a person only in rare cases, as the same is
extremely harsh and stringent that deprives
a person of his right to carry on business.
Many a time, it appears that the authorities
are using the tool of blacklisting as a
mechanism for extraneous reasons. Such
practices are deprecated by this Court. It is
to be further noted that the period of
blacklisting has to be proportionate to the
fault committed by the person upon whom
the blacklisting is being done.

8. The above comments in the
foregoing paragraph are only in the nature
of obiter dicta and should act as guiding
principles to the authorities before passing
the order of blacklisting.

9. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, both the writ petitions are
disposed of.

10. As we have not gone into the
merits of the case, all the issues shall be left
open before the authority concerned.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 558
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 38488 of 2024
With
Writ-C No. 38495 of 2024 & 38521 of 2024

Mrs. Manju Rakesh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravi Kant, Vatsala

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ankit Prakash, Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
C.S.C., Mohd. Afzal

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioners , homebuyers
in the Knights Court project by Jaiprakash
associates Ltd. filed petitions due to delay
in possession of their flats-The UPRERA
had earlier directed the builder to either
hand over possession within 45 days or
refund the amount with interest-Due to
non-compliance,
recovery
certificates
were
issued-Subsequently
the
builder
entered insolvency proceedings under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC),