IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5945 of 2009. Date of Decision: 26th May, 2009. Sureder Dalal Petitioner through Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.3.2009 [Annexure P-11] whereby he is alleged to have been black-listed and his enlistment as a Class-I contractor has also been withdrawn. The petitioner was enlisted as a Class-I contractor vide Memo dated 27.4.2004 by the Enlistment Committee of the Irrigation Department, Haryana, subject to certain conditions. His enlistment was renewed from time to time and lastly his enlistment was renewed up to 31.3.2010 vide Memo dated 26.11.2008, subject to the following conditions:- “1. The enlistment is valid up to 31.3.2010. 2. He/They will not be entitled to tender for the work in the Circle where his/their near relatives are working as SE/XEN/SDO. 3. Other conditions imposed vide this office letter No.404- 45/G-3/91 dated 9.1.1991 will remain unchanged”. Thereafter, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 30.3.2009 [Annexure P-11] which reads as follows:- “A proposal for blacklisting the subject cited contractor was received from the SE, Construction Circle, Gurgaon vide his office letter No.7408-10/5-A dated 23.12.2008. In this context, it is intimated that the Enlistment Committee has decided in its meeting to black list Shri Surender Dalal Contractor son of Shri Ajit Singh, resident of 54 Feet Road, Vidhya Nagar, Bhiwani from the Irrigation Department, Haryana. The enlistment of the above mentioned contractor was renewed vide this office letter No.4925-26/Enlistment/ Coordination/2008 dated 26.11.2008 is hereby withdrawn”. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. There are two aspects of the matter. Firstly, the impugned order refers to a decision purported to have been taken by the Enlistment Committee deciding to 'black-list the petitioner' from the Irrigation Department of Haryana. The second decision as finds mention in the impugned order that the petitioner's enlistment as a Class-I contractor which was earlier renewed till 31.3.2010, has been withdrawn. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have explained that the petitioner has allegedly duped the Department by producing forged documents pertaining to work contract which is already subject matter of adjudication by an Arbitrator. That being so, the impugned order, insofar as it withdraws the petitioner's enlistment as a Class-I contractor, calls for no interference. As regards the blacklisting of the petitioner as a contractor in the Department, there can be no denial to the fact that blacklisting entails civil consequences as it takes away source of livelihood of a person and it is well settled by now that no such decision can be taken without affording the person concerned an opportunity of hearing. In other words, the petitioner ought to have been confronted with the incriminating material against him, if any, which prompted the Enlistment Committee to blacklist him. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent that the impugned order dated 30.3.2009 [Annexure P-11] insofar as it purports to have blacklisted the petitioner as Contractor, is set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to pass an appropriate order after observing the principles of natural justice, if so advised. Disposed of. May 26, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE