Judicial Scrutiny of Blacklisting Order in Delayed Writ Petition

Explore the detailed legal analysis conducted by the High Court in a recent case where a blacklisting order was challenged through a delayed writ petition. The court’s scrutiny delves into the proportionality and legality of the order, shedding light on the importance of equitable considerations in such matters. Find out more about the nuances of this case in the following summary.


  • Appellant requested to participate in further tenders on 19.05.2011 and to withdraw the order dated 08.09.2009 on 01.05.2019.
  • Respondents rejected withdrawal request on 03.05.2019 citing violation of tender clauses 8.12 and 8.23.
  • Appellant followed up in writing with respondents and was debarred by the State of Rajasthan on 05.07.2019 based on the blacklisting.
  • Appellant aggrieved by the indefinite blacklisting order of 08.09.2009 and filed a writ petition due to lack of response from respondents.
  • Appellant received the blacklisting order on 08.09.2009 referencing substandard quality batch as per State Analyst report of 10.10.2008, violating tender clauses 8.12 and 8.23.
  • Appellant denied supplying under the concerned tender but requested additional information for representation submitted on 04.05.2019.

Also Read: Ensuring Fair and Thorough Police Investigations: A Legal Perspective


  • Learned counsel relied on the Gorkha Security Services case to argue that the show cause notice did not meet the legal requirements.
  • Further clarifications were provided by the appellant but had no outcome.
  • The order of blacklisting is causing prejudice to the appellant’s participation in tenders.
  • No proceedings were initiated under relevant sections of the Drugs Act against the appellant.
  • The delay in filing the writ petition was explained but not considered properly.
  • The order of blacklisting violates natural justice principles, making delay irrelevant.
  • The medicine brand name and composition were correctly mentioned, with only a minor labeling error.
  • A previous case suggested that a four-year debarment was sufficient.
  • The misbranding was a bonafide inadvertent printing error, not substandard or spurious.
  • The High Court dismissed the writ petition solely on the grounds of delay.
  • The appellant holds a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
  • The writ petition was dismissed due to a ten-year delay in challenging the blacklisting order.
  • There was no prejudice caused by any defects in the show cause notice.
  • The impugned orders do not warrant interference.
  • The veterinary medicine was found to be misbranded under Section 9 of the Drugs Act, supported by the analyst’s report.

Also Read: Presumption of Genuineness in Legal Documents Case


  • The discretion vested in the court under Article 226 of the Constitution must be a judicious exercise considering all pros and cons, including nature of dispute and delay explanation.
  • Duration of blacklisting was not specified initially but became a point of contention during arguments.
  • The show-cause notice should have clearly stated the intention to impose a penalty of blacklisting to provide an opportunity for the appellant to defend against it.
  • The court may refuse to entertain a petition in cases of delay, supported by past decisions.
  • Proportionality in considering interference with an impugned order under discretionary jurisdiction is important.
  • There was a lack of prejudice to the appellant due to non-mention of proposed blacklisting in the show-cause notice.
  • The order of blacklisting was found unsustainable and disproportionate by the court.
  • Strict discretion is exercised in delay cases, not as a mandatory requirement but as an equitable consideration.
  • The explanation provided by the appellant regarding printing error was not considered by the respondents.
  • The order of blacklisting was deemed vitiated and merits interference for various reasons stated in the judgment.
  • The notice did not clearly indicate that the addressee was being proposed to be debarred from taking any future contracts under the Department.
  • The Court referred to previous cases to emphasize that delay in filing a writ petition may be condoned if properly explained and if no third party rights are affected.
  • The discretion of the High Court to assist tardy individuals in reviving stale claims was acknowledged.
  • The context of the situation is crucial in determining the actions of the court.
  • The necessity of express communication in a show cause notice prior to blacklisting was highlighted in a specific case.
  • A specific example of a show cause notice requesting a contractor to ‘show cause’ why they should not be debarring from future projects was provided.
  • The writ petition was not barred by unexplained delay as the appellant had been pursuing the matter with the authorities.
  • The rejection of the appellant’s tender by the Rajasthan Government on 05.07.2019 triggered the institution of the writ petition on 24.07.2019.
  • The alleged purchase of samples under Form 14A from an unknown source and date was a feeble attempt to show compliance with provisions of the Drugs Act and must be rejected as an attempt to create evidence where none exists.
  • The order dated 08.09.2009 was deemed illegal and disproportionate, with no third party rights affected, yet this aspect was not considered by the High Court in the exercise of discretionary equitable jurisdiction.

Also Read: Legal Analysis of EPF Act Applicability to Security Agencies


  • The impugned order of the High Court and order dated 08.09.2009 of the respondents have been set aside.
  • The appeal has been allowed.
  • The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of delay.


Case Number: C.A. No.-003647-003647 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *