RE: Blacklisting of Lexwiz for non-compliance with qualifying clausesDate: November 26, 2013Questions presented:1. Can Mr. Shukla approach the Jalladpur High Court and challenge the blacklisting of Lexwiz for violation of Art. 14?2. Can he approach the Sardarpura High Court for the same?Short answer:There has been violation of Article 14 in the sense of principle of natural justice in the blacklisting process as the client n has received neither notification nor an opportunity to present his case. before the council. He can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and file a petition to this effect. Ideally, he can also approach the Sardarpura High Court under Art. 226. Facts: The Jalladpur Bar Council, under the direction of the Supreme Court, established an independent authority to conduct the CLAT examination, called the Common Law Admission Authority (CLAA), by issuing a circular. According to the circular, the CLAA had a Board of Trustees (GB) comprising the vice-chancellors of the 14 NLUs of Jalladpur, including Ms. Bholi Pujaaban of Patanjali Law University. The UK has issued a tender notice inviting IT companies to establish protocols for review procedures. The companies that submitted the bid agreed not to lobby the CLAA or have any pecuniary or personal relationships with any of its members. Lexwiz, who scored the highest in the GB technical subcommittee assessment test, had as its managing partner Anil Shukla, who had been a research assistant under Ms. Bholi Punjaaban as a student at the Patanjali Law University. Although his position is unpaid, all of his expenses were reimbursed during his tenure. In light of this fact, Lexwiz has been blacklisted middle of paper......dant.2. The court may consider the principle of violation of natural justice after taking into account the fact that there might have been bias and may follow the Eurasian route and order that the client be given an opportunity to be heard, like that was the case in the Vilanganandan case, which is the most likely solution given the relaxed standards of adjudication of bias in English as well as in Indian common law.3. The court may declare that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the client and reject the request as inadmissible. However, keeping in mind the precedents, it can be said that it is more likely that a hearing opportunity is given to the customer as the blacklisting was done without complying with the facet of the Audi Altem Party which requires that a person receive notice and sufficient opportunity to represent themselves before being blacklisted.