1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD).No.8913 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2011 E.Ganesan Proprietor, M/s.Sri Maheswari Modern Rice Mill No.124, Madurai Main Road, Sivakiri 627 757, Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 12, Thambusamy Road Kilpauk Chennai - 10 2. The Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli Region Tirunelveli 3. The Manager Quality Control Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vides Na.Ka.No. M.H5/14170/2011-2 dated 16.06.2011confirming the order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No. P.S.1-21640-10 dated 21.04.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to renew the petitioner's hulling agreement and continue to supply paddy for hulling purposes. For Petitioner : Mr. D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy For Respondents: Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner, who is Hulling Agents, has been receiving paddy in terms of a contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. With regard to certain violations, action has been initiated by the respondents for cancellation of contract and the petitioner has also been blacklisted. This according to the respondents are in terms of a clause in the contract. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges that portion of the order relating to blacklisting, contending that the order blacklisting the petitioner has been passed without giving opportunity to them to rebut the same. It is also contended that petitioner was 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, petitioner 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. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 blacklisting in accordance with law. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- 8.09.2011 This matter having been listed on Thursday the Twenty Ninth day of September 2011 for being mentioned pursuant to the order of the Court dt.8.9.2011 and made herein in the presence of the aforesaid counsel on either side, the Court made the following order. The writ petition is being listed at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner under the caption 'for being mentioned' in order to correct certain factual errors which have crept in the order. 2. In paragraph 2 of the order, it has been stated that insofar as the cancellation of contract, the petitioner will approach the competent authority. According to the petitioner, it was incorrect statement made by the petitioner, as there is no cancellation of the contract. Learned counsel for the respondents also confirmed that there is no cancellation. 3. In such view of the matter, paragraph 2 of the order that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the cancellation of contract before the competent forum does not arise. 4. Accordingly, the order stands corrected as above. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 12, Thambusamy Road Kilpauk Chennai - 10 2. The Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli Region Tirunelveli 3. The Manager Quality Control Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli W.P.(MD).No.8913 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2011 SMS/SMA/10.10.2011/4C/3P Dated:08.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/