The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside a debarment order against a contractor, M/s Satish Chandra Dixit, characterizing the state department’s persistent actions as a “classical case of legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power.” The Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the petitioner was being victimized for acting as a whistleblower against high-ranking officials of the Public Works Department (PWD).
The petitioner challenged an order dated August 30, 2025, which rejected his representation and upheld a debarment for the remaining period of 9 months and 22 days. The court found that despite specific previous directions to consider the petitioner’s detailed replies, the authorities had passed a mechanical order reviving a previously quashed debarment. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the debarment and blacklisting actions.
Background and Procedural History
The dispute originated from a 2020 tender for a minor bridge construction valued at ₹514.00 lacs. The petitioner alleged that he was debarred following a false complaint by a competitor, whose single tender was subsequently accepted. This was the first of several debarment attempts. In 2022, the High Court had quashed an earlier debarment, calling it a result of “whimsical and arbitrary” exercise of power.
A significant turning point occurred in February 2022, when the petitioner filed a complaint before the Lokayukta, Lucknow, regarding irregularities in tenders. A High Level Committee subsequently found six PWD engineers guilty of 17 charges. The petitioner alleged that following this report, he was pressured to compromise and, upon refusal, was served with fresh show-cause notices regarding experience certificates from 2018 and 2019.
Despite the High Court setting aside a 2024 debarment order due to violations of natural justice and directing a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s reply, the respondent authorities issued the impugned order on August 30, 2025, reviving the debarment.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Contentions: Shri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, argued that the department acted with “legal mala fides” because the petitioner’s complaint to the Lokayukta had led to disciplinary recommendations against senior officials. He contended that:
- The authorities failed to provide complete information as directed by the court.
- The reply dated July 15, 2025, was not considered on merits.
- The authorities attempted to revive an order (dated June 21, 2024) that the court had already set aside.
- The action was a deliberate attempt to harass a whistleblower.
State’s Contentions: The Standing Counsel for the State maintained that adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner. It was argued that:
- The petitioner was asked to appear in person but failed to do so.
- The replies submitted by the petitioner contained no new facts or defense beyond what was stated in earlier submissions.
- The authorities proceeded based on the available record and technical findings regarding “erroneous experience certificates.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court addressed three primary issues: the failure to consider the petitioner’s reply, the existence of legal mala fides, and whether the matter should be remanded again.
1. Failure to Consider Reply: The Court noted that even if a party fails to appear in person, the authority is bound to consider the written reply and documents on record. The Bench observed:
“It is a settled law that even if an authority has to proceed ex parte, it is incumbent upon it, to take into account, the reply and documents on record… which has not been done in the present case.”
2. Legal Mala Fides and Colourable Exercise of Power: The Bench provided an extensive distinction between “malice in fact” and “malice in law.” It concluded that the department’s actions constituted “legal malice,” defined as a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause.
“We hold the entire proceedings is a classical case of a legal mala fide and colourable exercise of power… the impugned action is on account of the fact that the petitioner was a whistle blower and had made a complaint against top officials of the Public works Department which was found to be correct.”
The Court further noted that while the petitioner was being targeted on “flimsy technical grounds” regarding years-old certificates, no action had been taken against the officials indicted by the Lokayukta.
3. Refusal to Remand (The ‘Consider Jurisprudence’): The State requested that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration. The Court flatly refused, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar Singh, which warned against “consider jurisprudence” that simply “throws the ball out of the court.”
“The ‘consider jurisprudence’, so routinely adopted these days… is counterproductive and harms the system… If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be.”
The Decision
The High Court held that the work under the original contract had been completed satisfactorily and the matter had become “stale.” It found that the petitioner had already suffered substantial stigma and financial loss over eight years of litigation.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the order dated August 30, 2025, bringing a “quietus to the proceedings.”
Case Details
- Case Title: M/s Satish Chandra Dixit vs. State of U.P. and 5 others
- Case No.: WRIT-C No. 34251 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan
- Judgment Date: March 23, 2026
- Counsel for Petitioner: Shri V.K. Singh (Sr. Adv.), Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, et al.
- Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Subra Singh (Standing Counsel)
