Del. HC: Assessing Officer to Decide Whether Case is Fit for Issuance of Notice u/s 148 of IT Act  ||  Delhi HC: Under Arbitration Act, Date of Receipt of Corrected Award Would be Taken as Disposal Date  ||  MP HC: Punishment of Termination of Employee for Single Clerical Mistake ‘Excessive’  ||  Ker. HC: Can Extend Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur to Criminal Cases Only for Assessment of Evidence  ||  P&H HC: While Adju. Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Manner in Which Accused is Arraigned in FIR is Important  ||  P&H HC: While Adju. Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Manner in Which Accused is Arraigned in FIR is Important  ||  Guj. HC: Can’t Use Nylon Threads, Cotton Threads With Glass Coating for Flying Kites  ||  Tel. HC: Parent Who is Lawful Guardian Taking Child from Custody of Other Parent is Not Kidnapping  ||  Mad. HC: Surplus Funds of Temple Cannot be used to Construct Shopping Complexes  ||  Del. HC: For Filing Additional WS After, Comm. Court Act Doesn't Prevent Appl. of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC    

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