Malik Traders Thru. Proprietor Sharif Malik vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Deptt(Nagar Vikas) Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Malik Traders Thru. Proprietor Sharif Malik vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Deptt(Nagar Vikas) Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of the blacklisting order dated 31.01.2026; respondent nos. 2 and 3 to show cause within 15 days why heavy cost be not imposed; petition connected with Writ C No.1639 of 2026 and listed on 16.03.2026 as fresh.

Issue for consideration

Whether the blacklisting order dated 31.01.2026, passed without any prior notice to the petitioner despite the settled legal position requiring pre-decisional notice, warranted interim interference by the Court.

Court's answer

The Court found that no notice was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the blacklisting order dated 31.01.2026, notwithstanding the legal position settled by a catena of Supreme Court decisions (including UMC Technologies, Vetindia Pharmaceuticals and Gorkha Security Services) requiring such notice, a position presumed known especially to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahabad, Hardoi which has a lawyer appointed to advise it.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned blacklisting order dated 31.01.2026 is stayed.

Key takeaways

Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to show cause within 15 days as to why heavy cost be not imposed upon them for the aforesaid reasons and for not following the law.ratio¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order — Blacklisting — Natural justice — Pre-decisional notice — Division Bench (Rajan Roy and Manish Kumar, JJ.) stayed a blacklisting order dated 31.01.2026 passed against the petitioner-trader without giving any prior notice, observing that the requirement of notice before blacklisting is settled by a catena of Supreme Court decisions: UMC Technologies Private Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551; Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 804; and Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105. Noting that such orders continue to be passed despite the position being presumed known even to bodies like the Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahabad, Hardoi, which has a lawyer appointed to advise it, and that this consumes valuable judicial time over settled issues, the Court stayed the impugned order, directed respondent nos. 2 and 3 to show cause within 15 days why heavy cost be not imposed for not following the law, connected the petition with Writ C No. 1639 of 2026 and listed it fresh on 16.03.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 1638 of 2026

Malik Traders Thru. Proprietor Sharif Malik

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Deptt(Nagar Vikas) Lko. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nitin Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Misra

Court No. - 1

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Nitin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for State respondents and Shri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for Nagar Palika Parishad.

2. Considering the fact that no notice was given to the petitioner prior to passing an order of blacklisting dated 31.01.2026, inspite of the legal position in this regard being settled by a catena of decisions passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of UMC Technologies Private Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 , Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and anr reported in (2021) 1 SCC 804 and Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 and inspite of the fact that by now the settled legal position in this regard is presumed to be known to all, especially the Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahabad, Hardoi which has a lawyer appointed to give it legal advise, such orders continue to be passed unabated compelling the aggrieved person to approach the Court which in turn consumes valuable time of the Court over settled issues.

3. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 is stayed. We further direct respondent nos.2 and 3 to show cause within 15 days as to why heavy cost be not imposed upon them for

WRIC No. 1638 of 2026

2

the aforesaid reasons and for not following the law.

4. Connect this petition with Writ C No.1639 of 2026 and list on 16.03.2026 as fresh.

(Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

February 20, 2026

Arnima

Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench