Mere Show Cause Notice Not Enough Before Blacklisting, Must Indicate Grounds And Material: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere issuance of show cause notice before blacklisting is not enough. It held that the show cause notice must be supported with grounds and materials for purported blacklisting. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held “this Court finds that not only the issuance of show cause notice is a condition precedent for...
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere issuance of show cause notice before blacklisting is not enough. It held that the show cause notice must be supported with grounds and materials for purported blacklisting.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held
“this Court finds that not only the issuance of show cause notice is a condition precedent for any blacklisting order, even the mention of material and ground, necessitating the contemplated blacklisting has to be mentioned in the show cause notice.”
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order of termination of contract and blacklisting on grounds that there was no show cause notice issued to it and even the blacklisting order did not mention any notice. It was also pleaded that the order was served upon the petitioner 1 year after it was passed and the petitioner was not paid any due for the work carried out by it.
The Court observed that regarding termination of contract and non-payment of dues, petitioner had the remedy of arbitration. It held that indefinite blacklisting of petitioner was not permissible in law.
Noting that the respondents had failed to show that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the Court observed that
“….the recent trend of this Court in blacklisting matter had been on transparency and clarity at the stage of issuance of show cause notice itself. As far as the present case is concerned, we do not find any cogent evidence of issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioners.”
Accordingly, the quashed the impugned order only to the extent of blacklisting of the petitioner.
Case Title: M/S Adeeba Naaz Contractor Thru. Proprietor Mr. Iftikhar Danish v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Minority Welfare And Waqf Lko . And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 227
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 227