Aurea Aviation Pvt Ltd Represented By Mr. Rajesh Sahu Director vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18765

1 W.P. No. 50000/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
th
ON THE 30 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 50000 of 2025
AUREA AVIATION PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY MR. RAJESH SAHU
DIRECTOR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
..........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Umakant Mishra – Senior Advocate through VC along with Shri
Rajeshwar Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, Advocate for the respondents no.2 and 3.
…..........................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
" i) Pass appropriate writ, direction, order quashing/ setting aside the impugned order
dated 25.03.2025 passed by the respondent authorities:
ii) Pass such other direction/ order as is deemed fit and proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case
."
2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25/3/2025, passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 7/15/2026
10:04:39 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18765

2 W.P. No. 50000/2026
respondent no.3/Airport Authority of India, whereby the petitioner, a company
engaged in providing ‘ Meet & Greet Facility and Advertisement-cum-Trolley
Retrieval Services’ at DABH Airport, Indore, has been black listed for
participating in any Airport Authority of India (AAI) tenders for three years on
account of non-payment of the dues by one M/s Aurea Sivasurchetvaka Aircab
GH services Indore Pvt. Ltd of which Mr. Rajesh Sahu was the common
Director as he was also the Director of M/s Aurea Aviation Pvt. Ltd/the
petitioner company.
3] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset has drawn the
attention of this Court to the initial show cause notice issued to the petitioner on
30.1.2025, in which there is no reference of any such proposed action of black
listing or debarring the petitioner from participating in future AAI tenders, and
what is mentioned is why appropriate action should not be taken against it.
4] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a reply to the
aforesaid notice was also submitted by the petitioner, which is also filed on
record, but it was not properly considered.
5] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of
this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21058/2017 (M/s Nirved
Namdeo Vs. Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company
Limited and others) dated 20.4.2018 , thus, it is submitted that the impugned
order dated 25/3/2025 deserves to be quashed and the petition deserves to be
allowed.
6] A reply to the petition has also been filed by the respondents no.2&
3/AAI, and while traversing with the averments made in the petition, a
preliminary objection has also been raised regarding the efficacious remedy
available to the petitioner in the form of an appeal before the Appellate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 7/15/2026
10:04:39 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18765

3 W.P. No. 50000/2026
Authority/Regional Executive Director as provided under the Commercial
Manual of the Airport Authority of India, 2019.
7] Counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that even otherwise the
petitioner was well informed in advance that any act of misrepresentation
would be met with an order of debarring, as it was alleged against the petitioner
that the petitioner has concealed the fact that an outstanding due of Rs
70,89,196/- payable to AAI. Thus, it is submitted that no illegality has been
committed by the authority.
8] In rebuttal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
since the order of black listing has been passed without following the principle
of natural justice, the alternative remedy is not efficacious as the petitioner
would be deprived of participating in AAI tenders in the future by the time the
remedy is availed by him, and the final order is passed by the appellate
authority.
9] A rejoinder to the reply has also been filed by the petitioner.
10] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
documents filed on record including the impugned order, it is found that so far
as the show cause notice is concerned, it refers to clause 12(e) of the NIT. The
relevant excerpts read as under:-
"According to clause 12 (e) of NIT in the E-Tender document
“Any party either a firm or an individual falling under the following categories is not
eligible:
(e) If the entity participating in any of the tenders is a private or public limited company,
Partnership firm or a Sole Proprietor and any of the Directors/Partners/Sole Proprietor
of such company is also a Director of any other company or partner of a concern or a
Sole Proprietor having established business with AAI and has outstanding dues payable
to the Authority, then the said entity may not be allowed in AAI tenders.”
11] However, so far as the penal provisions are concerned they are contained
in the General Information and Guidelines of NIT, and Clause 9(b) of General
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 7/15/2026
10:04:39 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18765

4 W.P. No. 50000/2026
Information of the same read as under :-
"(9) Fraud & Corrupt Practices and Penalty:-
(a)............
(b) Then the LOA or the draft Agreement, as the case may be, shall,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein or in this NIT
Document, be liable to be terminated by a communication in writing by AAI to
the agency without AAI being liable in any manner whatsoever to the agency. In
such an event, AAI shall forfeit and appropriate the EMD and Performance
Security and debar the agency from AAI tenders for any period not succeeding
subject to minimum of three years, as the case may be, without prejudice to any
other right or remedy that may be available to AAI in this regard."
12] Thus, it is apparent that there is no reference to the invocation of clause
9(b) in the notice, and only a reference to appropriate action has been made,
which cannot amount to communicating the petitioner that he would be
debarred for a period of three years. At this juncture, it would also be apt to refer
to the order passed by this court in the case of M/s Nirved Namdeo (supra)
W.P.No.21058/2017 para 14 of which reads as under :-
"14. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed many judgments, but
presently the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorkha
Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & others, reported in (2014)9 SCC
105 has been(sic) taken into consideration, which is more appropriate in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as
under:-
“21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the
action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the
serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise
case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the
statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he
has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another
requirement,according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to
be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is
able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case,
even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily
explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the
more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible
action.
22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show-cause
notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the
action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to
this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 7/15/2026
10:04:39 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18765

5 W.P. No. 50000/2026
be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds
on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion
that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a
show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz: ( i )
The material/grounds to be stated which, according to the department,
necessitate an action;(ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be
taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to
omit. We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in
the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the
reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.
23. xxx
24. xxx
25. xxx
26. xxx
27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was incumbent on the part of
the Department to state in the show-cause notice that the competent
authority intended to impose such a penalty of blacklisting, so as to
provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show
cause against the same. However, we may also add that even if it is not
mentioned specifically but from the reading of the show-cause notice, it
can be clearly inferred that such an action was proposed, that would fulfil
this requirement. In the present case, however, reading of the show-cause
notice does not suggest that noticee could find out that such an action
could also be taken. We say so for the reasons that are recorded
hereinafter.
28. In the instant case, no doubt the show-cause notice dated 6-2-2013
was served upon the appellant. Relevant portion thereof has already been
extracted above (see para 5). This show-cause notice is conspicuously
silent about the blacklisting action. On the contrary, after stating in detail
the nature of alleged defaults and breaches of the agreement committed by
the appellant the notice specifically mentions that because of the said
defaults the appellant was “as such liable to be levied the cost
accordingly”. It further says “why the action as mentioned above may not
be taken against the firm,besides other action as deemed fit by the
competent authority”. It follows from the above that main action which the
respondents wanted to take was tolevy the cost. No doubt, the notice
further mentions that the competent authority could take other actions as
deemed fit. However, that may not fulfill the requirement of putting the
defaulter to the notice that action of blacklisting was also in the mind of
the competent authority. Mere existence of Clause27 in the agreement
entered into between the parties, would not suffice the aforesaid
mandatory requirement by vaguely mentioning other “actions as deemed
fit”. As already pointed out above insofar as penalty of blacklisting and
forfeiture of earnest money/security deposit is concerned it can be imposed
only, “if so warranted”. Therefore, without any specific stipulation in this
behalf, the respondent could not have imposed the penalty of blacklisting.
29. No doubt, rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they
be lifted to the position of fundamental rights. However, their aim is to
secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is now well-
established proposition of law that unless a statutory provision either
specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 7/15/2026
10:04:39 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18765

6 W.P. No. 50000/2026
rules of natural justice, in exercise of power prejudicially affecting another
must be inconformity with the rules of natural justice.
30. xxx
31. xxx
32. xxx
33. When we apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the
present case, it becomes difficult to accept the argument of the learned
Additional Solicitor General. In the first instance, we may point out that
no such case was set up by the respondents that by omitting to state the
proposed action of blacklisting the appellant in the show-cause notice, has
not caused any prejudice to the appellant. Moreover, had the action of
blacklisting being specifically proposed in the show-cause notice, the
appellant could have mentioned as to why such extreme penalty is not
justified. It could have come out with extenuating circumstances defending
such an action even if the defaults were there and the Department was not
satisfied with the explanation qua the defaults. It could have even pleaded
with the Department not to blacklist the appellant or do it for a lesser
period in case the Department still wanted to blacklist the appellant.
Therefore, it is not at all acceptable that non-mentioning of proposed
blacklisting in the show-cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the
appellant. This apart, the extreme nature of such a harsh penalty like
blacklisting with severe consequences, would itself amount to
causing prejudice to the appellant.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment of the High Court does not decide the issue in the correct
perspective. The impugned Order dated 11-9-2013 passed by the
respondents blacklisting the appellant without giving the appellant notice
thereto, is contrary to the principles of natural justice as it was not
specifically proposed and, therefore, there was no show-cause notice given
to this effect before taking action of blacklisting against the appellant. We,
therefore, set aside and quash the impugned action of blacklisting the
appellant. The appeals are allowed to this extent. However, we make it
clear that it would be open to the respondents to take any action in this
behalf after complying with the necessary procedural formalities
delineated above. No costs.”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, applying the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court,it is apparent that the
petitioner has not been issued a specific notice regarding blacklisting, which has led to
violation of principles of natural justice and in gross violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, and as such the availability of the alternative remedy would not be
a bar for entertainment of the present petition and in such circumstances the present
petition is maintainable."
emphasis supplied)
(
13] Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court as
relied upon by this Court, it is apparent that the respondents have not served the
notice in its proper form, i.e, by communicating to the petitioner the precise
action that the respondents intended to take against the petitioner. In such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 7/15/2026
10:04:39 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18765

7 W.P. No. 50000/2026
circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was provided any opportunity
of hearing for its debarment. Apart from that, it is also found that the impugned
order dated 25.3.2025 does not reflect upon the merits of the matter.
14] In the result, the present petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated
25.3.2025 is hereby set aside with liberty to the respondents to issue an
appropriate show cause notice citing proper penal and actionable provisions to
the petitioner and pass the order in accordance with law, after affording due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
15] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
das
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 7/15/2026
10:04:39 AM