Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
Heard Sri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 3 and Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chitij Misra, Advocate, representing the respondent-U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd.
Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 02-12-2020 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as Electronics Corporation), whereby the petitioner-firm has been blacklisted, with a further direction that decision to black list the petitioner-firm may be furnished to all the departments and officers so that the alleged misconduct may not be repeated.
Various grounds have been urged by Sri Mukund Tewari, learned Senior Advocate impeaching the impugned order dated 02-12-2020.
Learned counsel representing the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited, however, has stated that after passing of the impugned order dated 02-12-2020, the petitioner has made representation on 17-01-2021 raising therein various issues and the Managing Director, U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited is under the process of considering the same.
It has been stated that prima-facie, the order dated 02-12-2020 is not sustainable for the reason that the said order does not provide any period of blacklisting, which is completely derogatory to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vet India Pharmaceutical Ltd. Versus State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 943.
It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the show cause notice, the respondent-corporation had not expressed its intention to propose any action of blacklisting and on this count alone, the impugned order is not sustainable.
It is true that the order impugned in this petition passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited on 02-12-2020 does not provide period for blacklisting the petitioner-firm. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, a perusal of which also does not reflect that the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited had expressed any intention or proposed action to black list the petitioner-firm.
Learned Senior Advocate representing the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited submits that he has instructions to say that the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited proposes to blacklist the petitioner-firm. Accordingly, without entering into the merit of the claim of the respective parties, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner-firm to furnish a representation in addition to the representation dated 17-01-2021 already preferred by it. We also provide that in view of the statement made by Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited that the corporation intends to take action against the petitioner-firm for blacklisting, no fresh notice shall be required to be issued. The petitioner-firm, as already provided above, shall however, make its reply under this order including the reply to the issue as to why the petitioner-firm may not blacklisted.
We further provide that an additional reply, under this order, shall be furnished by the petitioner-firm within two weeks from today. The matter shall be considered by the U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited within four weeks thereafter.
The impugned order dated 02-12-2020 passed by the Managi