Baba Saheb Ambedkar Technical Educational Society Vs Union of India

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2139/2023 and CM APPL. 8080/2023, CM APPL. 23138/2023

¶4

Date of Decision : 08.04.2026

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY .....Petitioner Through: Mr Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Chaudhary and Ms Sakshi Mendiratta, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC with Mr. Amit Acharya, Govt. Pleader.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶11

JUDGEMENT

¶12

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petition is for the following reliefs:

¶14

“[ a] Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Respondent by which the Petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of 5 years; and

¶15

[b] Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the recovery notice dated 07.02.2023 issued by Respondent for recovery of Rs.1,03,77,450/[Rupees one crore three lakh seventy seven thousand and four hundred fifty only] from the Petitioner; and

¶16

[ c] Issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondent to activate the SAK portal and permit the Petitioner to upload the requisite data and documents for the purpose of release of 2nd and 3^rd instalments of 50% and 20% of the project cost in terms of sanction letter dated 12.03.2019; and

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.04.2026 12:35:24

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶21

[d] Issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.1,39,23,290/- [Rupees one crore thirty nine lakh twenty three thousand two hundred ninety only] being the amount payable to the Petitioner towards the 2nd and 3^rd instalments of 50% and 20% of the project cost in terms of sanction letter dated 12.03.2019; and [ e] Pass any other and further order( s) as may be deemed fit.”

¶22

The petitioner is registered as a ‘training partner’ on the SMART (Skill India) portal operated by the National Skill Development Corporation under the Union of India. It was sanctioned projects for imparting placement-linked training to minority youth for the target years 2018-19 vide sanction order dated 12.03.2019 under the ‘Seekho aur Kamao Scheme of the Union.

¶23

Owing to the non-submission of the relevant documents, the respondents issued show cause notice dated 26.07.2022 proposing cancellation of the allocation to the petitioner and recovery of all funds already disbursed under the scheme. Further, the respondent even issued a provisional blacklisting order against the petitioner dated 24.11.2022, blacklisting the petitioner for a period of five years. The petitioner replied to the notice of provisional blacklisting, contending that the non-submission was on account of a technical glitch in the portal operated by the respondent. Dissatisfied with the reply, the respondent has issued the impugned orders for blacklisiting the petitioner and seeking recovery of the funds already disbursed under the Scheme.

¶24

The petitioner has also filed C.M. Appl 23138/2023 seeking interim relief pending disposal of the petition. This Court, vide order dated 12.05.2023, had taken note of the submission on behalf of the petitioner that it had uploaded details of around seven hundred and thirty students, and directed the respondents to verify the aforesaid information, if actually

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶28

Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.04.2026 12:35:24

¶29

uploaded.

¶30

Pursuant to order dated 12.05.2023, the concerned officer of the respondent has filed an affidavit dated 11.08.2023, stating that the details of seven hundred and forty-one candidates were found to be uploaded on the portal.

¶31

Mr Puneet Mittal, learned senior counsel, submits that with respect to remaining students as well, the circumstances surrounding the nonsubmission of the students’ details may be considered by the respondent.

¶32

The Court finds that for the remaining students whose details have been found to have not been uploaded, the petitioner may submit a representation with the concerned department. The concerned department shall look into the same and take an appropriate decision with due expedition.

¶33