Vineet Plastics Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Others

In this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the order of blacklisting without any reference to show cause and reply without affording any opportunity of hearing. As this Bench has already held that having penal consequence opportunity to represent his case is must on the basis of paragraph 3 of the judgment reported in Allahabad Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and in paragraph 4 of the judgment reported in 2010 (2) ADJ 292 (DB) (Arvind Kumar Singh v. Union of India), which are as follows respectively:

Therefore, before passing such extreme order, a show cause required to be made to the Petitioner to give his explanation and thereafter the Governmental authority can take a decision to this extent. We are very much relying on paragraph 2o of the judgment in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, It has also been followed in various cases such as Joseph Vilangandan Vs. The Executive Engineer, (Pwd), Ernakulam and Others, Paragraph 20 of the judgment in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, is as follows:

Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is related by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.

Against this background, we are of the view that blacklisting will have a penal consequences, therefore, unless an appropriate hearing on show-cause is completed, no authority is allowed to pass such order of blacklisting. We are very much relying on paragraph 20 of the judgment Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, It has also been followed in various cases such as Joseph Vilangandan Vs. The Executive Engineer, (Pwd), Ernakulam and Others, of the judgment reported in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, is as follows:

Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship which the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.

In the light of aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that the order impugned can not be held to be sustained. Therefore, the order impugned stands quashed with consequential effect. The writ petition is disposed of without imposing any cost.

In any event, passing of this order will not prevent the Respondents from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.