Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jan Sewa Kalyan Sansthan And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 28654 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10073 (23 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28654 of 2006

Jan Sewa Kalyan Sansthan, Chawar Newada Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi & Anr.


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 05.05.2006 (Annex.6) by which the petitioner Society has been blacklisted for not using the amount for the purpose it was given to it.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

It is evident from the impugned order that certain amount had been sanctioned to the petitioner Society from time to time but it was not utilized for the purpose it was given. At a later stage, keeping the amount for a long period, the amount has been returned to the Treasury. Thus, the order impugned has been passed, blacklisting the petitioner Society.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner Society could not have been blacklisted without giving any opportunity to it. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed only on this ground.

There is nothing on record to show that before passing the impugned order, any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Society as to why it should not be blacklisted.

In view of the above, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that instead of quashing the order impugned, the matter may be sent back to the Statutory Authority and the petitioners may file a representation within a period of one week from today along with a certified copy of this order before him and in case petitioners satisfy the Authority that the order impugned was passed without issuing any show cause notice, the order impugned shall not only be recalled but the Authority would proceed in accordance with and pass a fresh order, after giving show cause notice to the petitioners.

In view of the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in case petitioners file an application for recalling the order impugned within a period of one week from today before the Authority concerned, the Authority is requested to consider the same and pass appropriate order within a period of three weeks thereafter. If the Authority is satisfied that though show cause notice was not given but it is necessary to blacklist the petitioner Society, it would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

For a period of four weeks, the order impugned shall be kept in abeyance.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.