The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has stayed a blacklisting order, reiterating the settled legal principle that such an action cannot be taken without issuing a show-cause notice or for an indefinite period. A division bench, expressing strong disapproval of the authorities’ failure to adhere to established Supreme Court rulings, has directed the District Magistrate and the District Basic Education Officer of Unnao to submit personal affidavits justifying their actions or face heavy costs.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on July 7, 2025.
Background of the Case
The Court was hearing a writ petition, WRITC No. 6285 of 2025, filed by M/S Cropscare Infotech Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Ankit Dixit. The petitioner challenged three orders that led to its debarment or blacklisting by the State of U.P. and other respondents. The petitioner was represented by counsels Amit Jaiswal, Adesh Srivastava, and Shobhit Mohan Shukla, while the respondents were represented by the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) and Advocate Abhinav Singh.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The bench began its order by stating, “Legal position is well settled that an order of black listing cannot be passed without show cause notice, and certainly not for an indefinite period.”
The Court emphasized that this principle has been repeatedly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, including:
- Eursian Equipment and Chemicals Vs. State of W.B.; (1975)
- Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar; (1889)
- Gorkha Security Services Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi); (2014)
- Kulja Industries Ltd. Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL; (2014)
- M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.; (2020)
- Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; (2021)
- U.M.C. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs FCI & Anr.; 2021 (2) SCC 551
The Court expressed its dismay that despite the clear legal position and the constitutional mandate under Article 144 for all authorities to comply with Supreme Court rulings, it is continuously burdened with such cases.
The bench observed, “…everyday we are flooded with such petitions challenging orders of debarment or black listing on the aforesaid ground, therefore, it is high time we make the officers accountable for such lapse.” It further noted that such actions force petitioners to incur financial expenses and other hardships to approach the court, which also “wastes the time of the Court.”
Interim Order and Directions
In its interim order, the Court directed that “all the three impugned orders shall remain stayed” until the next date of listing.
Furthermore, the bench ordered the District Magistrate, Unnao, and the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao, to file their own affidavits within 10 days. The officials are required to justify their action and also explain “why, if it is found that the action is in the teeth of the law declared by Hon’ble the Supreme Court which they are bound to follow, heavy cost of at least Rs. 50,000/- each be not imposed upon them.”
The case is scheduled to be heard next on July 21, 2025.
