Allahabad High Court
SWASTIK INFRATECH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The debarment was upheld as valid because there was no breach of natural justice and the one‑year period was proportionate to the substandard work.
Summary
The petitioners, Swastik Infratech and two others, challenged a one‑year debarment order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department (PWD) after a work order for road repair was found to be substandard. They alleged that the debarment was a retaliatory act for their whistle‑blowing complaint exposing alleged irregularities involving a local MLA and contractors, and claimed they were denied a fair hearing. The respondents justified the blacklisting on the basis that the road resurfacing was executed with a thickness less than specified, and that the petitioners were given two show‑cause notices to explain the deficiencies. The court examined whether the debarment violated principles of natural justice and found that the petitioners had been afforded adequate opportunity to be heard. It also held that the one‑year period was not excessive and was proportionate to the alleged substandard work. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the debarment order.
Issues considered
- Whether the one‑year debarment of the petitioners by the PWD was justified on the ground of substandard work.
- Whether the debarment violated the principles of natural justice by denying a fair hearing.
- Whether the duration of the debarment was excessive or amounted to commercial death of the petitioners.
Subjects
- debarment
- blacklisting
- Public Works Department
- tender
- natural justice
- substandard work
- whistleblower
- administrative action
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 8120 of 2026
Swastik Infratech And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Pranab Kumar
Ganguli, Utsav Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Kumar
Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved
by the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the respondent no.2 by which the
petitioner has been debarred with immediate effect for one year in
participating in the tenders of the PWD.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
That on 23.12.2025, the petitioner was issued a work order bearing no.
CB- No. 190/EE/2025-26 for special repair work of Malaun Crossing to
Karbala Pond Link Road in Kanpur. It is the case of the petitioner that on
26.11.2026, he submitted a representation to the Chief Minister through
the IGRS portal supported by an affidavit dated 19.01.2026 allegedly
exposing the irregularities and influence of outsiders in the tendering
process.
It is thereafter alleged by the petitioner that the so-called whistle blowing
activity of the petitioner annoyed the local MLA and other contractors
associated with the local MLA and who had threatened and attacked
Ayush Tiwari, the son of the petitioner due to which an F.I.R. was
registered by the son of the petitioner on 26.01.2026 at P.S. Chaubeypur.
WRIC No. 8120 of 2026
2
It is further the case of the petitioner that it was on account of the pressure
brought to bear upon the respondents by the MLA of Bilhaur that a
counterblast F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner on 27.01.2026 by
the Junior Engineer. On the same day, the Execute Engineer, Provincial
Division (PWD, Kanpur issued a show-cause notice pursuant to his
inspection on 27.01.2026 that the son of the petitioner threatened the
Junior Engineer and that on inspection the work was found to be
substandard and not as per specifications. Thereafter, the petitioner's firm
submitted its reply on 29.01.2026 purportedly giving his point wise reply
and that no opportunity for hearing was provided. Thereafter, on
03.02.2026, a fresh show cause notice was issued by the Superintended
Engineer of PWD, Kanpur Circle directing the proprietor of the
petitioner's firm whether he had authorized his son Ayush Tiwari to file
his affidavit on his behalf. The petitioner replied vide his reply dated
05.02.2026 admitting that his son was acting in the interest of the firm
and was the authorized signatory to the entire correspondence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the blacklisting of
the petitioner for the period of one year which prohibits him from
participating in any tender quoted by the PWD was malicious and was
done on account of the whistle blowing activity indulged in by the
petitioner wherein he had exposed, according to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the close nexus between the local MLS and other
contractors. He further submits that the petitioner was assaulted by the
henchmen of the MLA on account of the said complaint made by him,
which led to filing of an FIR by the petitioner on 26.01.2026. He further
submits that it was on the very next day i.e. 27.01.2026, that the
counterblast F.I.R. was registered against his son by the Junior Engineer.
5. As regards the reason for blacklisting the petitioner which according to
the respondent-State was the substandard work done by the petitioner
wherein he was required to resurface the road with 5 cm whereas the
inspection reveals that road layer was only 3 cm and maximum of 4 cm.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is no
specific denial of the inspection report of the respondents, he has, by
necessary implication denied the same and in his reply the petitioner has
stated that if there was work that was done in contravention to the
WRIC No. 8120 of 2026
3
required specification, the Junior Engineer was there to supervise the
work done by the petitioner ought to have been taken to task. However,
this court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The presence of the Junior Engineer as a supervising agent of the PWD
does not mean that the petitioner was allowed to carryout the work
deficient of the specifications. The Junior Engineer is there to maintain
the measurement book on the basis of which the bills of the petitioner
were required to be cleared on a later date upon finding that the work
executed by him were in compliance of the specifications. Therefore
merely because the Junior Engineer was not proceeded against by the
respondent-State/PWD, does not mean that the petitioner had executed the
work which was compliant of the specifications.
6. Under the circumstances, there is no specific averment in the petition or
by way of the documents annexed thereto that the contention of the PWD
that the work was not in compliance of the specifications is incorrect, and
there being no specific denial of the inspection report dated 27.01.2026, in
the only stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they
did not wait for the lab report, to which this court is unable to agree with.
The same cannot be sufficient enough to state that the blacklisting has
been unjust.
7. What is required to be seen and stated herein is that there was no
violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given an
adequate opportunity by way of two show cause notices to explain the
deficiency of his service to which there was no specific denial. The
process of blacklisting is the prerogative of the State which takes work
out of the contractors and this court is of the opinion that the period of
one year cannot be said to be excessive which could result in the
commercial death of the petitioner, and is commensurate with the
deficient quality of work executed by him.
8. Under the circumstances, in view of what has been argued, considered
and referred to herein above, the petition stands dismissed.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
March 19, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…