Karnataka High Court
Aerographic Papers Private Limited vs Bharatiya Reserve Bank on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41324
WP No. 54036 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 54036 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
AEROGRAPHIC PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.E-40, MIDC INDUSTRJIAL AREA
HINGNA ROAD, NAGPUR - 440 028
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. VARUN KRISHNA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK
Digitally signed by NOTE MUDRAN PVT. LTD.,
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: HIGH ( WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.3 & 4, 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE,
BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH NARAYAN S, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41324
WP No. 54036 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATION DATED 26.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT [ANNEXURE-H] AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner is questioning the communication dated 26.09.2017 (Annexure-H) wherein the petitioner has been blacklisted, inter alia, sought for a direction to the respondent to refund the forfeited security deposit/performance security of ₹2,37,456-00.
2. Heard Sri Karan Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Santhosh Narayan S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Sri Karan Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to the proceedings at Annexure-H dated 26.09.2017, wherein, the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of 2 years from the date of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:41324 WP No. 54036 of 2017 HC-KAR issuance of the letter at Annexure-H and further while passing an order of blacklisting, there is no specific notice which has been issued against the petitioner with regard to the penal action that may be taken against the petitioner and therefore he further contented that since the 2 years period has lapsed and because of the considerable time passed, he places the judgment of this court in WP.No.20520/2021 dated 18.04.2024 and while inviting the attention of the court to paragraph 11 of the order of the aforementioned judgment, he submitted that the writ petition requires to be allowed by quashing the Annexure-H to the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Santhosh Narayan S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent, invited the attention of the court to the proceedings dated 25.05.2017 at Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections and submitted that the representatives of the petitioner have been heard in the matter. Therefore, countered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:41324 WP No. 54036 of 2017 HC-KAR the impugned communication dated 26.09.2017, wherein the respondent has taken a decision to blacklist/delist the petitioner from participating in any future tenders for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of the said communication. Undisputably, during the minutes of the meeting as per Annexures-R4 and R5, there is no specific notice that has been issued to the petitioner to take penal action against the petitioner for blacklisting the petitioner with regard to their performance, insofar as the participation in the tender as stated above. On the background of these aspects, it is not in dispute that the impugned order at Annexure-H has been passed on 26.09.2017, blacklisting the petitioner herein for a period of 2 years from participating in further tenders, is violation of principles of natural justice.
6. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to paragraph 11 of the judgment of this court in WP.No.20520/2021, wherein this Court at paragraph 11 held as follows:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:41324 WP No. 54036 of 2017 HC-KAR "11. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court supra, the order of blacklisting on the face of it would become unsustainable. It is an admitted fact in the case at hand that there is no notice to show any cause issued to the petitioner as to why the firm should not be blacklisted. The impugned order comes to the petitioner as a bolt from the blue. Such bolt from the blue cannot be sustainable in law unless it is preceded by a notice for such blacklisting. At this juncture the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation would now comply with the principles of natural justice by issuing notice and then passing necessary orders. This submission is objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the Hand Sanitizers were supplied on 06-04-
2020. The report from the Drugs Control Department is said to have been obtained on 16.04.2021 and replacement notices were issued on 12-07-2021. To-day the matter is taken up in the month of April, 2024 after 4 years having elapsed after such supply. In such circumstances the remand to the concerned to comply with an order is no remedy that the Corporation can seek. In this regard, I am fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1. The Apex Court in the said case was considering an identical violation of principles of natural justice while blacklisting. The Apex Court holds that the order of blacklisting was found to be unsustainable, but considering long passage of time, the Apex Court was not inclined to remand the matter to the authorities. The Apex Court followed the judgment in the case of DAFFODILLS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED v. STATE OF U.P.2 wherein blacklisting order was beyond three years and therefore, it was not remitted. The Apex Court has held as follows:
"14. Since the order of blacklisting has been found to be unsustainable by us, and considering the long passage of time, we are not inclined to remand the matter to the 1 (2021) 1 SCC 804 2 (2020) 18 SCC 550 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:41324 WP No. 54036 of 2017 HC-KAR authorities. In Daffodills Pharmaceuticals [Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2020) 18 SCC 550 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1607] , relied upon by the appellant, this Court has observed that an order of blacklisting beyond 3 years or maximum of 5 years was disproportionate.
15. That brings us to the question of delay. There is no doubt that the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction may decline to exercise the discretionary writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay in approaching the court.
But it is only a rule of discretion by exercise of self-restraint evolved by the court in exercise of the discretionary equitable jurisdiction and not a mandatory requirement that every delayed petition must be dismissed on the ground of delay. The Limitation Act stricto sensu does not apply to the writ jurisdiction. The discretion vested in the court under Article 226 of the Constitution therefore has to be a judicious exercise of the discretion after considering all pros and cons of the matter, including the nature of the dispute, the explanation for the delay, whether any third-party rights have intervened, etc. The jurisdiction under Article 226 being equitable in nature, questions of proportionality in considering whether the impugned order merits interference or not in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction will also arise. This Court in Basanti Prasad v. Bihar School Examination Board [Basanti Prasad v. Bihar School Examination Board, (2009) 6 SCC 791:
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 252] , after referring to Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher, AIR 1967 SC 1450], Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, (1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] and State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566] , held that if the delay is properly explained and no third-
party rights are being affected, the writ court -7- NC: 2025:KHC:41324 WP No. 54036 of 2017 HC-KAR under Article 226 of the Constitution may condone the delay, holding as follows : (Basanti Prasad case [Basanti Prasad v. Bihar School Examination Board, (2009) 6 SCC 791 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 252] , SCC p. 796, para 18) "18. In the normal course, we would not have taken exception to the order passed by the High Court. They are justified in saying that a delinquent employee should not be permitted to revive the stale claim and the High Court in exercise of its discretion would not ordinarily assist the tardy and indolent person. This is the traditional view and is well supported by a plethora of decisions of this Court. This Court also has taken the view that there is no inviolable rule, that, whenever there is delay the Court must refuse to entertain a petition. This Court has stated that the writ court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may condone the delay in filing the petition, if the delay is satisfactorily explained." In the light of the issues arising in the case at hand standing answered by the Apex Court which would cover the issue on all fours and the fact that four years have passed by after the supply and the order of blacklisting, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the issue and not remit the matter back to the hands of the respondent as the Hand Sanitizers that were supplied have naturally dried up by efflux of time."
7. Following the declaration made by this court in the above case, wherein even if this court is of the opinion to remit this matter to the respondent for fresh consideration after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, however, as the period of 2 years has lapsed by efflux of time and the writ petition is of the year 2017, I am of the view that such an -8- NC: 2025:KHC:41324 WP No. 54036 of 2017 HC-KAR exercise cannot be made for remanding the matter to the respondent, which is futile exercise. However, it is made clear that the stigma of blacklisting, which has been made in the communication dated 26.09.2017 at Annexure-H, has to be set aside, and in the meanwhile, the respondent is hereby directed to refund the forfeited security deposit as per Annexure-H to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. .
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK