* 1 * W.P. 4536.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4536 OF 2010 Kilja Industries Ltd .......Petitioner V/S. Chief General Manager & Ors. .........Respondents * * * * Mr. Amit Borkar i/by. Mr. V.N. Shingarpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni Senior Counsel h/f. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Dated : 5 OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate for the respondent waives service of notice. 2. What is challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 21st April, 2010 of the Assistant General * 2 * W.P. 4536.2010 Manager (MM) permanently blacklisting the petitioner and banning the entire business dealings with all the persons dealing with BSNL on the ground of receiving double/excess payment during the years 2000 to 2005. 3. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to enumerate the grounds of challenge to the impugned order because one of the grounds of challenge is that the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioners any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing. 4. As per the settled position enunciated by the Apex Court in M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd V/s. State of West Bengal and Another A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 226, such an order of blacklisting cannot be passed without giving a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing. On this ground alone, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and therefore we have not heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the controversy. 5. We may, however, refer to the petitioner’s contention that according to the petitioner under Clauses-32 and 33 of the Tender Conditions, the BSNL has the right to disqualify the supplier on the ground of failure to supply the equipment in time or on the ground that the equipments supplied do not function satisfactorily and that even on these grounds the order of blacklisting can only be for a limited period. It is submitted * 3 * W.P. 4536.2010 by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the instant case, no such ground is alleged against the petitioner, but, the only ground alleged is excess payment. It is submitted that such alleged excess payments are made to as many as 26 other parties indicated the communication dated 27th May, 2008 send by the Vigilance Officer of the BSNL to Assistant General Manager, (MM). 6. We do not propose to go into the merits of the controversy. We leave it open to the petitioners to raise all such and other contentions, if and when BSNL issues such a show cause notice for blacklisting. In case, such a show cause notice is issued, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of filing reply within a period of 2 weeks and a hearing should be afforded within a period of 2 weeks from the date of filing the reply. The BSNL may then take a final decision in the matter within a period of 6 weeks from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. 7. We may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the contentions raised in the petition. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions and clarifications. [CHIEF JUSTICE] [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]