'BLE SHM JAfi&ISH BHALLA, Ag. CI. & •BU -^ Respondents Smt. Sushma V. Bhatia, W/o Shri V.K. Bhatia, aged about 45 years, Soie Proprietor M/s ftuchi Coci raders, Lakhmopur, Nagpur Road, Chandrapur (Aft.S.) Through its Authorised Signatory Shri V.K.Bhatia. 3. 4. 5. Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkatta-700001 throush its Chairman. South Esstern Coaifieids Ltd., Seepct ftoad, Bilaspur Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Oirector. ©eneral Manager- (SAM) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). birector (Marketing), Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Koikata (W.B.) (Sener-al Manager- (S&M), Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhash Roed, Kolkata (W.B.) M/s Metal Junction Service Ltd., Tata Centre, 43 Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkatta Through its Senior** (Seneral Manager Shri Vinaya Vcr'ma Writ petition under Artic!e 226 of the Constitution of India Shri Mwiindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate wjth Shri Akhilesh Galpati, counsel for fne petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy,counselaccepts notice for respondent Nos. lto5 because he had qapeared in the identical matter. . (Passed on 07t beesmber, 2007) The foilowing onii order of 1+ie Court was passed by ..rf. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been subrnitted by Shri Manindra Shrivastava, iearned counsel dppearing on behalf of the petitioner-Company that the writ petition is directed against the order of bhcklisting dated 3 October, 2007. It has been further submitted that the petitsoner- Compcny has been blacklisted on certain recommendations made by respondent No.6. It has also been submitted that no opportunity has been provided to the petitioner-Compemy, •ttierefore,learned counsel for the petitioner-Company alleges vio!ation of principles of naturat jifstice and rslfes on decisions r-endered in M/s Erusion E<ju'!pment & Manska Gandhi v. Umon of India. AIR 1978 SC 597. Learned counsel cypearing for the par-ties submit that this matter is squarely coyered by the judgment of this Court, dated 06-11-2007 psssed in W.P.(C) No. 6629/2007 and this matter may a!so be disposed of in the light of above judgment. On behalf of respondent Nos.l to 5, Shri P.S. Koshy, ieamed counsel submitted thnt the authorities of S.E.C.L. deemed it fit that the biackiisting can be doneon 1+ie recommendations of respondent No.6, therefore, order dated 03-10-.2007 was passed against the pstitioner-Co mpony. In •i+ie light of the fact that no opportunity has been provided to the petitioner-Company, therefore, the writ petition con be finally disposed of, as suggested by Shri P.S. Koshy, learnsd counse' for respondents No.l to 5. Accordingiy, the impugned order dated 03-10-2007, which suffers from iltegality, is set aside only as far as the petitioner-Company is concerned, without further making any % 3> -i[ti observation on the merit of the matter except that .reasonable oppor-tunity shouid have been giyen to the petitioner-Company to defend itself before passing of order of biacklisting. It is open for the authorities of S.E.C.L. concerned to afford <m opportunity to the petitioner-Compaiy in accorddnce with tow and decide the matte" expeditiously, if they so desire. However, on the basis of recommendations, the authorities of S.E.C.L may proceed in the mctter. With the aforescid observation, the writ pstition is disposed of, Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counset for the petitioner-Company shall inform the authorities of S.E.C.L. concemed about this order. However, it would be open for- th®counsel for the petitioner- Company to flle an affidcvit to the extend •Hiat the wrlt petition chaiienging the impugned order dated 03-10-2007 has been decicied and the impugned order has been set aside in presence of Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to5. Learned counsei for- th® petitioner undertakes that the petitioner wif! cooperate wlth the authoritles concerned in any enquiry, if instiliited. Sd/- ActingChiefJustice Sd'- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge nimmi