In re: M/s. Grand Engineering Works and Another

S.B. Sinha, J.—The question which arises for consideration tn this application is as to whether the Impugned order dated 12.3.97 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been black listed, is sustainable in law. The said order read thus :

"The undersigned hereby orders that M/s. Grand Engineering Works, Barajaguli Chowmatha. P.O. Barajagull. Dist : Nadia be black listed for transitioning any sort of business with this Directorate with immediate effect".

A bare perusal of the aforementioned order would show that the assertion to the effect that the said order was passed without complying with the mandatory requirements of principle of natural Justice is correct. However, Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents seeks to place before this court a purported admission of the petitioners to the effect that he had accepted the fact that he had been loading certain other materials which was not permitted under the contract. The learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contention relies upon The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another Vs. Ramjee, and K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India and Others, .

It is clear that prior to passing of the order no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The records produced before this court do not show that any notice has been Issued to the petitioners nor an opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct had been given. It is a trite law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, that the order of blacklisting without complying with the principles of natural justice would be bad in law. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Sarjoo Prasad Vs. General Manager and another, . In M/s. Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another, , the apex court upon considering various decisions has held that before passing an order of blacklisting prior notice and opportunity of being heard is necessary. In S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, , it has been held that non-grant of such opportunity Itself would result in prejudice. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the State were rendered in different facts situation. In the case of The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another Vs. Ramjee, , the apex court was dealing with the matter relating to holding of examination.

In K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India and Others, , the apex court held that where a matter is admitted, a further opportunity of hearing need not be given but the same would depend upon fact of each case.

An order of blacklisting not only deprives a person from his livelihood but also affects his reputation. In that view of the matter strict compliance of principle of natural Justice must be held to be a constitutional necessity before such an order can be passed.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside with liberty to the concerned respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to hereinbefore. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. This application in thus, disposed of.

Liberty is given to the learned counsel for both the parties to take down the gist of this order for communication.

Application disposed of