Bombay HC: Wife Humiliating Husband in Front of His Friends is Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Delhi HC Interprets Doctrine of “Compelled Self-Publication”,  ||  Del. HC Issues Summons to Campus Sutra in Trademark Infringement Suit Filed by Footwear Brand Campus  ||  Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Restraining Order against PRADA  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Bypass Bar on Revision of Interlocutory Order by Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi HC: Prosecutrix’s Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination Weakens the Case  ||  Bom. HC: No Provision under JJ Act that Allows Adoption of a Child of Foreign Citizenship  ||  SC Passes Order to Prevent Russian Mother’s Attempt to Flee with Child  ||  SC: Deprivation of Natural Heir from Will May Not Raise Suspicion  ||  SC: Denying Female Heir Right in Property Only Exacerbates Gender Division    

Mica Cargo Movers Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (02 May 2023)

Before taking extreme action of blacklisting, the entity has to be put to notice for the same

MANU/DE/2860/2023

Civil

By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of order passed by Respondent No. 2/Northern Railway whereby Petitioner's registration as a contractor with Indian Railways, was cancelled alongwith cancellation of lease contracts, forfeiture of security deposit and blacklisting for a period of 5 years.

Before taking extreme the action of blacklisting, the entity has to be put to notice for the same so that it can answer. An order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality.

The impugned actions against the Petitioner firm have been taken without issuance of any independent show cause notice or affording a hearing. Even otherwise, the ostensible reason for taking the impugned action also does not survive. In view of the above, present Court finds merit in submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and directs setting aside of the impugned order. Petition allowed.

Tags : REGISTRATION   CONTRACTOR   CANCELLATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved