Dipanjan Roy vs Bureau Of Energy Efficiency

Court
Delhi High Court

$~49 & 50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5335/2026, CM APPL. 26185/2026 & CM APPL.
26186/2026

Date of Decision : 18.05.2026

IN THE MATTERS OF:

DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONERGY SERVICES PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Piyush Joshi, Ms. Sumiti Yadava, Ms.
Vatsla Bhatia, Ms. Akshay Sharma,
Ms. Amrita Dwivedi, Mr. Darpan
Sachdeva, Ms. Ramayni Sood and
Mr. Ankit Handa, Advs.

versus

BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Kartikey Nayar, Adv.
50
+ W.P.(C) 5339/2026, CM APPL. 26194/2026 & CM APPL.
26195/2026

DIPANJAN ROY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Piyush Joshi, Ms. Sumiti Yadava, Ms.
Vatsla Bhatia, Ms. Akshay Sharma,
Ms. Amrita Dwivedi, Mr. Darpan
Sachdeva, Ms. Ramayni Sood and
Mr. Ankit Handa, Advs.

versus

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:36:46
Page 1 of 7

BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Kartikey Nayar, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. These petitions are for setting aside the common letter dated
07.04.2026, issued by respondent no. 1-Bureau of Energy Efficiency
( Bureau ), whereby the petitioners have been debarred from participation in
all schemes of the Bureau and its efficiency-related activities for a period of
three years, and the letter of award dated 07.12.2024 issued to them has been
cancelled.
2. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 5335/2026, M/s Development
Enviroenergy Services Private Limited ( company ), was empanelled with the
Bureau as an ‘accredited energy auditor firm for PAT M & V’ vide letter
dated 07.04.2014. It was awarded three contracts for ‘Baseline Data
Collection and Process Verification Audit of Sugar Sector for inclusion in
PAT Scheme' vide three letters of award, all dated 07.12.2024, by the
Bureau. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 5339/2026, Mr. Dipanjan Roy, is an
employee of the company. He was also granted accreditation as an energy
auditor by the Bureau vide certificate dated 01.17.2016.
3. Owing to disagreements between the parties with respect to
completion of the awarded work within the stipulated timeline, the Bureau
issued show cause notice dated 01.09.2025 to the company seeking its
response on why action under Rule 9(7)(a) and (c) of the Energy
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:36:46
Page 2 of 7

Conservation (Energy Consumption Norms and Standards for Designated
Consumers, Form, Time within which, and Manner of Preparation and
Implementaion of Scheme, Procedure for Issue of Energy Savings
Certificate and Value of Per Metric Tonne of Oil Equivalent of Energy
Consumed) Rules, 2012 should not be taken. However, no show cause
notice was issued to Mr. Dipanjan Roy prior to his debarment.
4. These two writ petitions were called out for hearing on 21.04.2026.
The Court had taken note of the primary grievance raised in W.P.(C)
5335/2026 regarding non-consideration of the petitioner’s reply and in
W.P.(C) 5339/2026 regarding non-issuance of the show cause notice.
5. The Court, on 21.04.2026, when the matters were listed for the first
time, was of the prima facie opinion that the impugned action is
impermissible in law, considering the aforesaid circumstances and the legal
position as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Ltd vs.
1
Chief General Manager W.T. Proj. Bsnl & Ors. Further, the respondents
were queried whether they were open to reconsidering the case after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Bureau was also
directed not to take further coercive steps and to maintain status quo as was
existing on the said date. On 23.04.2026, the operation of the impugned
order was stayed.
6. The Bureau has since, filed its counter affidavit, and taken the stand
that the question for consideration in these petitions is only whether the
petitioners had notice of the allegations, the proposed actions, and been
given adequate opportunity to respond, and not whether the impugned
decision is in line with the company’s reply to the show cause notice.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:36:46
Page 3 of 7

Further, various averments have been made to justify the decision which
was ultimately taken in the impugned order.
7. The Court, however, finds that the Bureau has dealt with the reply of
the company in a single line, as follows:
“Upon careful examination of the submissions and records, the
Committee concluded that the agency has failed to comply with the
aforesaid provisions and has committed violations.”
8. It is trite law that State actions are to be supplemented by reasons to
be specified in the order itself, so as to enable Courts to test their legal
soundness when exercising its powers of judicial review. These reasons
cannot later be supplied by way of affidavits in order to justify the action,
once the aggrieved party approaches the Court. Reference in this regard,
may be made to the oft cited decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder
2
Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner .
“ 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity
must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention
3
to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji, :
“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the order of what
he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended
to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant
to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings
and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must

1
(2014) 14 SCC 73
2
(1978) 1 SCC 405
3
Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:36:46
Page 4 of 7

be construed objectively with reference to the language
used in the order itself.”
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”
9. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Bureau to record the reasons for
its decision in the impugned itself, and the impugned order is vitiated by the
absence of the same.

10. Insofar as the debarment of Mr. Dipanjan Roy is concerned, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside for an additional reason. He was not
served with any show cause notice prior to his debarment.
11. The Supreme Court, in Kulja Industries Ltd. has held that,
considering the effects of blacklisting on the aggrieved party, it ought to be
given a fair prior opportunity to present its case against the same. Reference
may be made to the following extract from the said decision:
“
18. The legal position on the subject is settled by a long line of
decisions rendered by this Court starting with Erusian Equipment
4
& Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. where this Court declared that
blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from entering into
lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains and
that the authority passing any such order was required to give a
fair hearing before passing an order blacklisting a certain entity.
This Court observed:
“20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person
from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful
relationship with the Government for purposes of gains.
The fact that a disability is created by the order of
blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have
an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play
require that the person concerned should be given an
opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the
blacklist.”

4
(1975) 1 SCC 70
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:36:46
Page 5 of 7

Subsequent decisions of this Court in Southern
5
Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.; Patel Engg.
6
Ltd. v. Union of India; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal
7 8
Services Ltd.; Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD),
among others have followed the ratio of that decision and applied
the principle of audi alteram partem to the process that may
eventually culminate in the blacklisting of a contractor.”

12. The necessity of a show cause notice prior to any debarment action
has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services v.
9
Govt. of (NCT of Delhi) , as follows:
“ Necessity of serving show-cause notice as a requisite of the
principles of natural justice
16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be
preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly
grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The
necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by
giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of
blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale
behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences
follow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted
with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature
and debars such a person from participating in government tenders
which means precluding him from the award of government
contracts. “
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 is hereby set
aside. Considering the circumstances, liberty is granted to the Bureau to
issue a show cause notice to Mr. Dipanjan Roy and to take an appropriate
decision after affording an opportunity of hearing. Insofar as the company is
concerned, since it has already been served with a show cause notice, the

5
1994 Supp (2) SCC 699
6
(2012) 11 SCC 257
7
(2006) 11 SCC 548
8
(1978) 3 SCC 36
9
(2014) 9 SCC 105
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:36:46
Page 6 of 7

Bureau is granted liberty to rehear the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order
dealing with its submissions.
14. Petitions stand disposed of, accordingly.
15. Needless to state that all rights and contentions are left open.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
MAY 18, 2026/p



Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:36:46
Page 7 of 7