$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9242/2022, CM APPL. 27709/2022 and CM APPL.

26640/2023 Date of Decision: 20.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

VH SECURITIES LIMITED Through its Authorised Representative Mr. Anil Sahi B-525, New Friends Colony .....Petitioner (Through: Mr. Mayank Bughani, Advocate.)

versus TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED Through its Managing Director TCIL Bhawan Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 .....Respondent (Through: Mr Arun Sanwal, Mr Aditya Mani Sharma, Mr Jasbir Bidhuri, Mr Akshit Gupta Advocates.)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“a. Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of direction setting aside the impugned Letter dated 20.09.2021 issued by the Respondent;

b. Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of direction to the Respondent not to take any action pursuant to the impugned Letter dated 20.09.2021;

c. Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of direction to the Respondent to withdraw the suspension/ban/debarment of the Petitioner as contemplated in the impugned Letter dated 20.09.2021 and to allow the Petitioner to participate in all future Tenders which may be issued by the Respondent from time to time;

d. Pass any other order/orders as may be deemed fit in the given facts and circumstances.”

2. The petitioner seeks for setting aside the communication dated 20.09.2021, issued by the respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been declared ineligible to participate in any tender from the respondent for a period of three years.

3. However, it is noted that the said period of three years has expired, therefore, the order of debarment has already lived its life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies on various decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 551 with specific reliance on observation made in paragraph no.14 thereof, which is extracted as under:-

“14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the state or a state corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularized and unambiguous show cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatization that accrues to the person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts.

This privilege arises because it is the State who is the counterparty in government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting takes away this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person’s reputation and brings the person’s character into question. Blacklisting also has long- lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the blacklisted person.”

5. He also relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case titled as Kulja Industries Limited v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731 to submit that while the freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of private parties, however, when such decision is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities, the same is subject to judicial review on the touchstone of fairness, relevance, natural justice, non-discrimination, equality and proportionality.

6. Reliance in also placed on the decision in the case of Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors, (2014) 9 SCC 105 to submit that an order of blacklisting has adverse civil consequences and, therefore, the objective of blacklisting shou