M/S Aaradhya And Adhyatm Associates Thru.Proprietor Vishwa Deepak Dwivedi And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Urban Planning U.P. Govt. Lko. And 4 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, a GST-registered firm, submitted a tender for an electrical contract. Their staff allegedly submitted a forged bank certificate, leading to the firm being blacklisted indefinitely. The petitioner claims the show cause notice did not indicate indefinite blacklisting.
Held
The Court set aside the order of indefinite blacklisting as it was not indicated in the show cause notice. The LDA was directed to issue a fresh notice and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Key Issues
Whether the indefinite blacklisting of the petitioner was justified without proper notice and opportunity of hearing, and if the show cause notice adequately informed the petitioner of the proposed action.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10248 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari after summoning the records in original and thereby quashing quashing the order impugned order dated 16.9.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to 5 to allow the petitioner to participate in furture tenders floated by respondent no.2 in the interest of justice."
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of State - respondents and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, who appears on behalf of LDA. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner no.2 is proprietor of petitioner no.1 Firm which is duly registered under the provisions of GST Act since year 2018. The Firm is also empanelled as contractor in the office of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Jauhari, Ambuj Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra M/S Aaradhya And Adhyatm Associates Thru.Proprietor Vishwa Deepak Dwivedi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Urban Planning U.P. Govt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
respondent no.2 for Electrical contracts and it has executed several contracts awarded by respondent no.2 successfully. The respondents no.2 and 3 floated a tender for work of 'C.G. City Yojana Main Fine Dine Street ke Vyavsaik Bhukhando ke Vidyutikaran ka karya' with certain terms of eligibility. The petitioner fulfilling such eligibility terms had submitted his tender. He went for darshan of Mata Vaishno Devi in Katra and deputed his staff to submit the application form on the online portal but under the conspiracy staff of petitioner no.1 submitted the application form and in support of financial capacity annexed a Bank Certificate issued by the Bank of Baroda which had never been obtained by the petitioner no.
The petitioner no.2 came to know about it only when he received notice from the LDA saying that on verification the certificates have been declared as forged by the Bank of Baroda and the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of six months and in the show cause that was issued to him copy which has been filed as Annexure 6, the respondents while blacklisting the petitioner for a period of six months also issued show cause to him as to why the firm's Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.