C.W.P No. 7857 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7857 of 2007 Date of decision : September 10, 2008 M/S Techman Enterprises ...... Petitioner through Mr.D.K.Singal, Advocate v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others, ...... Respondents through Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This petition was filed for quashing of the order dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure P-12), blacklisting the petitioner and debarring it from participating in future tenders. Grievance in the petition is that the impugned order does not contain any reasoning, while rejecting the reply of the petitioner to the allegations that the petitioner was aware of the quotations of other bidders which were unethical practice. This charge was denied by the petitioner in the reply (Annexure P-11) by submitting that the petitioner acquired knowledge about the other quotations only at the time of negotiations and no unethical practice was followed. On 23.5.2007, this Court granted stay of the impugned order C.W.P No. 7857 of 2007 ::2:: which was to remain operative upto one year i.e upto 13.10.2007. Learned counsel for the respondents states that since the order has already expired, the petition has become infructuous and debarring of the petitioner has come to an end. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have communicated the blacklisting order to such other users and that this stigmatized the petitioner. He urges that in this view of the matter the petitioner cannot be deemed to have been blacklisted. We find considerable merit in the arguments raised by the petitioner. The impugned order does not even consider the reply, filed by the petitioner and no reasons are forthcoming as to what weighed with the respondents in arriving at a finding of guilt on the part of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.10.2006 is quashed. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 10, 2008 'kk'