AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
An order was passed by respondentauthorities, The petitioner come to be blacklisted. Copy of the order so passed is annexureA. The further
fact is that the operation of this order was stayed by this court on 15th August, 1986.
It is a settled law that if an order is passed by which a person or concern is blacklisted then this order has to be passed consistently with
principle of natural Justice. In this regard it would be apt to refer to a Division Bench judgement of Orissa High Court reported as AIR 1986
Orissa 220. This judgement takes notice of two decisions given by the Supreme Court of India as well.Para 4 and 6 dealingwith this aspect of
matter are relevant and are being noticed:
Para4. Law is well settled that nobody should be blacklisted without giving an opportunity of being heard. An order of blacklisting a person results
in civil consequences. It affects the reputation of the person blacklisted not only in his dealing with the Government but in his dealing with private
firm. It affects his business prospects. These principles have been enunciated in the decisions reported in (1971) i Cut WR147 (Puranchandra Das
v. Director of Public Instruction, Orissa) AIR 1975 SC266 (Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. V. State of West Bengal) and AIR 1978 SC
930 (Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (P. W.D) , Ernakulam)"".
Para6. It is true that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to enter into contract with the Government. But it cannot be denied that he is
entitled to equal treatment with others who offer tender or quotations . In the decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 266 it has been observed :
The Government is a government of laws and not of men. It is true that neither the petitioner nor the respondents has any right to enter into a
contract but they are entitled to equal treatment with others who offer tender or quotations for the purchase of the goods. This privilege arises
because it is the Government which is trading with the public and the democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of
arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions. Hohfeld treats privileges as a form of liberty as opposed to a duty. The activities of the
Government have a public element and. therefore, there should he fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with any one
but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure.
See also AIR 1987 Madhya Pradesh 281.
The order in this case is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. This petition is disposed of with a liberty to the authorities to pass
fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing. Till a decision is taken, the interim order passed by this court in the case shall continue to operate
Disposed of accordingly.