1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD).Nos.7560, 7466 & 7467 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 2, 1 & 1 of 2011 1. Muthupandeswari 2. K.S.Karuppaiah ...Petitioners in W.P.(MD).No.7560/2011 3. K.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7466/2011 4. M.Muthupandeswari ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.7467/2011 -Vs- The Senior Regional Manager Madurai Region Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Madurai ... Respondent in all WPs. PRAYER IN ALL W.Ps.: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent Na.Ka.No.gp1/7732/2010, dated 29.06.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioners in all W.Ps. : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondent in W.P.No. 7560/2011 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent in W.P.Nos.7466 & 7467/11 : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader, C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners, who are Hulling Agents, have been receiving paddy in terms of a contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondent. With regard to certain violations, action has been initiated by the respondent for cancellation of contract and the petitioners have also been blacklisted. This according to the respondent is in terms of a clause in the contract. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges that portion of the order relating to blacklisting, contending that the order blacklisting the petitioners has been passed without giving opportunity to them to rebut the same. It is also contended that petitioners were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, there is violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, he prayed to set aside that portion of the order relating to blacklisting. He further stated that insofar as the cancellation of contract is concerned, petitioners will approach the competent forum to redress the grievance on the merits of the cancellation of the contract. 3. The issue relating to right of personal hearing to a person, blacklisted, has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in AIR 1989 SCC 620, in which, it has been stated in Paragraph 4 as follows: "Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. In so far as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do no express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the order in so far as it directs blacklisting of the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law. In the premises, that portion of the order directing that the appellant be placed in the blacklist in respect of future contracts under the Collector is set aside. So far as the cancellation of the bid of the appellant is concerned, that is not affected. This order will, however, not prevent the State Government or the appropriate authorities from taking any future steps for blacklisting the appellant if the Government is entitled to do so in accordance with law, ie. giving the appellant due notice and an opportunity of making representation. After hearing the appellant, the State Government will be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with law indicating the reasons therefor. We, however, make it quite clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. The appeal is thus disposed of." 4. In this case, it is not disputed that there was no personal hearing before passing the order blacklisting the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. The ratio of the above decisions will apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order directing that the petitioners be blacklisted in respect of future contracts, is set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondent to proceed in the issue of blacklisting in accordance with law. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. vsg Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Madurai Region Madurai +1 cc to M/s.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate SR.No.30611. +2 cc to M/s.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader, SR.No.30851 & 30852. W.P.(MD).Nos.7560, 7466 & 7467 of 2011 Dated:08.09.2011 3P/5C RPB 22.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/