Isabella Mariam

The Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi has quashed an indefinite blacklisting order issued by a District Basic Education Officer against a service provider engaged for manpower-related work under a government education scheme, and remitted the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh decision-making. The dispute arose from complaints linked to the selection and document-verification process for proposed personnel, alongside objections to directions that allegedly expanded the contractor’s scope of work. The Court held that while debarment may be used to discipline erring suppliers, it cannot be open-ended, and administrative measures must be proportionate, reasoned, time-bound, and consistent with natural justice given the serious civil consequences of blacklisting.

The writ petition arose from administrative action taken against a private company engaged in providing manpower and outsourcing services to government departments under an education-related scheme. The dispute concerned an order by a district-level authority placing the petitioner under blacklisting without specifying any duration. The petitioner challenged this action on the ground that it was arbitrary, lacked statutory authority, and violated principles of natural justice.

Also Read: AP Stamp Act | Agreement To Sell Attracts Stamp Duty Only If Followed By Delivery Of Possession: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that subsequent communications issued by the authorities expanded the contractual scope beyond the original terms and that non-compliance with such additional requirements could not constitute a breach. It was asserted that detailed replies were submitted in response to multiple notices, supported by documents, but these were not considered before passing the blacklisting order. The petitioner also alleged that no material forming the basis of the blacklisting was supplied.

The respondents defended the action by asserting deficiencies in contractual performance and maintained that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to explain its conduct. The dispute primarily involved interpretation of the governing Government Order dated 26.07.2024, the contractual framework under the GeM bid, and the authority competent to impose blacklisting under the scheme.

The Court examined the record and noted that the impugned order did not specify the duration of blacklisting. It observed that “the blacklisting order is passed for indefinite time period” and that the order “failed to refer or consider the detailed replies and supporting documents submitted by the petitioner.”

On the issue of contractual scope, the Court recorded that “the requirement to prepare a merit list of 504 candidates after verification of original documents was not in the original engagement terms.”

Relying on precedent, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. and noted that “blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract.” It further quoted that “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.”

The Court also referred to Gorkha Security Services and recorded that “with blacklisting many civil and/or evil consequences follow” and that such action amounts to “civil death.”

On proportionality and duration, the Court cited Kulja Industries Ltd. and observed that “the ‘debarment’ is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence.”

Addressing competence of authority, the Court noted that the applicable Government Order vested decision-making power with the District Magistrate. It stated that “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.”

The Court recorded that “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.”

Also Read: Parental Disputes And Pending Matrimonial/Criminal Cases Cannot Justify Refusing A Minor’s Passport; Allahabad High Court

The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed” and accordingly the writ petition “is partly allowed to that extent. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.” It was ordered that “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. 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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Narendra Singh, Advocate (through Sri Ashwini Kumar Yadav)
For the Respondents: Sri Mukul Tripathi, Standing Counsel 

Case Title: M/S Wizitec Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others

Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:6600-DB

Case Number: Writ – C No. 44710 of 2025

Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar, Justice Swarapama Chaturvedi