Surjeet Singh Sohan Singh ia, S/o Late Shri ia, aged about 50 lf\ \. 2. 3. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS Chhattisgarh State Civii Supplies Corporation Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 through its Wlanaging Director, ial Aashram Parisar, Kachhahari Chowk, Headquarters, Raipur (C.G.). District Mahager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Suppiies Corporation Ltd., District Office Rajnandgaon (C.G,). Collector, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). iT Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari Mr. A.S. h^chhawaha, ocate for the petitioner. Advocate for respondents /. Advocate General Heard. The petitioner was awarded contract for transportation of food jrains. On certain lapses, the petitioner was servsd with a show cause notice dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure-P-1). The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 30.03.2011. Thereafter, the impugned order (Annexure-P-2) was passed on 31 .03.2011, whereby, the contract the petitioner was terminated and the security deposits were forfeited and it was also directed that t'ne name of the petitioner be kept in black iist. ^^^, '^~ ^1 >. 3 2- W.P.fCl N0.1968^011 Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to various paragraphs of the contract, argued that in case of passing an order of black listing, atleast 7 days notice was required to be sen/ed upon the petitioner, which was not done in this case,thus, the impugned order of black listing dated 31.03.2011 is bad in !aw and the same deserves to be quashed on account of non observance of principles of naturai justice. Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 & 2, has not disputed the faetual aspects of the matter. He has also not disputed that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2011 and the impugned order of forfeiture and black listing was passed on 31.03.2011. He submits that in case the impugned order is quashed on the ground of not following the principles of natural justice, the respondents be given opportunity to take afresh actjon and to take appropriate decision in accordance with iaw. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at iength and have also persued the records ofthe writ petition. Admittedly, the show cause notice was issued on 28.03.2011 and the impugned order of black listing was passed on 31.03.2011. This shows that the respondents without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner have passed the order of black listing against the petitioner, which requires to be quashed on the simple ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner in the said matter. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure-P-2) is quashed. However, liberty is yanted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner for the lapses allegedly committed by him, after giving him afresh show cai|se notice and granting him proper opportunity of hearing in due course. No cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge SdA Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge