Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31262 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vayam Technologies Limited And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ronak Chaturvedi,Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate had appeared on behalf of Village Level Entrepreneur, even not a party in the matter but in the interest of justice, we have heard him also.
2. Learned Standing Counsel stated that he does not propose to file counter affidavit, since, petitioner is confining challenge to order dated 17.09.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent 3, only to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner.
3. Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Counsel contended that while the petitioner has been blacklisted by means of impugned order, but neither any show cause notice was issued to petitioner as to why he may not be blacklisted nor the period for which he has been blacklisted, has been specified. Virtually, impugned order results in blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period, which is not permissible in law. He has placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, 2014 (9) SCC 105.
4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that before passing impugned order blacklisting the petitioner, no show cause notice with regard to blacklisting was issued to petitioner and further the order itself shows that there is no time period provided for which petitioner has been blacklisted.
5. A Division Bench of this Court has considered similar issue in Writ C No.14505 of 2015 (M/s Vindhyawasini T. Transport Vs State of U. P. and others) decided on 20.02.2018 and clearly held that firstly an order blacklisting a person cannot be passed without giving show cause notice and secondly blacklisting should be for a specified period and not for an indefinite period.
6. In view thereof, impugned order dated 17.09.2019, only to the extent it has blacklisted the petitioner, cannot be sustained and to that extent, it is hereby set aside. We make it clear that impugned order is set aside only to the aforesaid extent and not beyond that.
7. Writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed to aforesaid extent. However, this order shall not preclude Respondent-Authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to petitioner.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Manish Himwan