Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.09.2025
M/S PILLAR ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shahzeb Ahmed and Mr. Adeel Ahmad Khan, Advs.
Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. The present application assails an order dated 19.07.2025, passed by the respondent/non-applicant, whereby the licence of the petitioner for running a photocopy/stationery shop has been terminated. CM APPL.56505/2025 (for de-sealing the shop premises)
2. Further, the petitioner has been sought to be blacklisted permanently from all present and future commercial engagements/contracts with Jamia Milia Islamia/respondent.
3. The impugned order dated 19.07.2025 reads as under:
4. The above order was passed in the backdrop of an order dated 16.07.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 9996/2025, which reads as under:
3. M/s Pillar Enterprises has been blacklisted from all further business activities in JMI. This is issued with the approval of the Competent Authority. -sd- (Mohammad Meraj Khan) Asstt. Registrar (Property Section)”
4. The limited contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only has the contract between the petitioner and the respondent been sought to be cancelled, but the petitioner has also been sought to be blacklisted by the respondent, without even providing the petitioner a copy of the recommendation of the committee on which reliance has been placed in the impugned order. It is submitted that the same amounts to a gross denial of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner has not been allowed to present its version as regards the exercise conducted by the concerned committee.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, submits that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the committee, and the petitioner’s version has been taken note of in the recommendation of the committee. It is on that basis that the impugned order has been passed. However, it is undisputed that the report/recommendation of the committee was not provided to the petitioner.
6. In the circumstances, since the impugned order has been passed without providing the petitioner a copy of the report/recommendation of the committee on which the impugned order is predicated, there has been apparent infraction of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. However, it is clarified the respondent is at liberty to pass a fresh order after providing a copy of the committee’s report/recommendation to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. During the course of the hearing, a copy of the report/ recommendation has been provided to the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a hearing will be provided by the concerned Officer who issued the Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 18.07.2025. The concerned officer shall be at liberty to pass a reasoned order thereafter, taking into account all aspects of the matter.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been provided a copy of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. Although the same is refuted by learned counsel for the respondent, he submits that to obviate any controversy, another copy of the agreement shall be provided to the petitioner by tomorrow i.e. 17.07.2025.
10. It is made clear that upon a reasoned order passed by the respondent, the same shall become executable immediately. Needless to say, the same shall be subject to the legal rights and remedies of the parties.
11. It is undertaken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall participate in the hearing scheduled on 18.07.2025 and shall not take any adjournment in any circumstances. In the event of any adjournment being sought, it shall be open to the concerned officer to issue appropriate interim directions.
12. Order dasti.”
5. In the immediate aftermath of the aforesaid order, a hearing is stated to have been afforded to the petitioner on 18.07.2025, pursuant to which the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.07.2025 was passed.
6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order, raising the following contentions:
(i) It is contended that the copy of the Report of the Committee was provided to the petitioner on 18.07.2025 at 1:15 PM and a hearing was scheduled at 03.30 PM. As such, the petitioner was not even granted enough time to peruse the Report of the Committee and to make an appropriate submission in its defence.
(ii) It is submitted that the impugned order, apart from terminating the petitioner’s licence, seeks to permanently blacklist the petitioner from all present and future dealings. It is submitted that the said directions are extremely harsh and amounts to serious infringement on the petitioner’s right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) Lastly, it is submitted that the allegations on the basis of which the action has been taken are unsubstantial and, as such, there was no occasion to terminate the licence of the petitioner.
7. The aforesaid contentions are opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, contending that the impugned order was passed in scrupulous compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 16.07.2025, passed by this Court.
8. It is further emphasized that the conduct of the petitioner has been egregious inasmuch as the petitioner was using the respondent university premises for selling forged medical certificates to the students.
9. It is further submitted that it is the prerogative of the concerned university to consider whether the petitioner is to be allowed to engage in vending activities from the university or not, especially considering the grave and serious allegations against the petitioner.
10. It is undisputed that the Licence Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent is terminable. The same does not create any vested right in the petitioner to continue its vending activities within the premises of the university in question.
11. The action of termination of the Licence Agreement has been resorted to by the respondent on the basis of the provisions of the Licence Agreement.
12. It transpires that the Licence Agreement also contains an arbitration clause which is in the following terms:
13. In these proceedings, this Court does not deem it appropriate to construe the relevant provisions of the Licence Agreement and enter into the thicket of disputed factual aspects and interpretation of relevant provisions of the Licence Agreement. Suffice it to say, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement to agitate its grievance as regards the termination of the licence.
14. It is also noticed that pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2025, passed by this Court, there has been substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as a hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 18.07.2025, and it was in pursuance of the said hearing that the impugned order came to be passed.
15. However, insofar as the impugned order seeks to virtually blacklist the petitioner in perpetuity, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the impugned order is unreasoned and bereft of any rational basis for taking such action.
16. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 to the extent that it seeks to blacklist the petitioner from all present and future commercial arrangements/contracts of Jamia Milia Islamia/respondent is set aside.
17. However, it is clarified that in case the respondent seeks to blacklist the petitioner, it shall be open to issue a ‘Show Cause Notice’ (SCN) to the petitioner, clearly setting out the basis for the proposed blacklisting action and also clearly setting out the period for which the petitioner is proposed to be banned.
18. Needless to say, the petitioner would be provided an opportunity to respond to the said show cause notice and blacklisting/debarring action, if any, shall be taken only after complying with the principles of natural justice.
19. Since the shop of the petitioner is stated to have been sealed in the aftermath of the impugned order dated 19.07.2025, it is directed that the same shall be de-sealed only to enable the petitioner to take out its articles lying therein. For the said purpose, the petitioner shall approach the petitioner submitting a request, the shop in question shall be de-sealed for a period of 24 hours to enable the petitioner to take all its articles therefrom.
20. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the sealing of the shop is itself illegal and is in contravention of the Licence Agreement. The petitioner would be at liberty to agitate this aspect in the arbitration proceedings.
21. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
22. The date already fixed i.e. 20.11.2025, stands cancelled.
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2025