Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Rashmi Metaliks Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenged blacklisting order due to alleged procedural flaws. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. criteria for blacklisting must show failure in obligations, not mere inactivity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court quashes blacklisting order, finding it legally unsustainable. (Para 11 , 12) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2950 of 2024 th Decided on 28 April 2025 Rashmi Metaliks Limited …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
“That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the impugned communication dated 22.08.2023 Annexure P-4 and 18.07.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice.”
2. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by office order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-4), issued by the Engineer-in-
Chief Jal Sha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
