ssp 1 WP(L) 2292 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2292 OF 2011 M/s.Bhavana Trading Co. .....Petitioner versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..... Respondents Mr.Atul Damle, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Hegde, for the respondent. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 13 th DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Mr.Hegde waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken today for final hearing. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the respondent, by which certain amount has been recovered from the petitioner from the final bills regarding supplying of low quality of raw materials i.e. hand rests, as well as black-listed the petitioner for a period of three years. The petitioner submitted its tender for supply for hand rests. Since the petitioner was the successful tenderer regarding supply of hand rests of rubber, the petitioner continued to supply the said material for about eight months upto December, 2009. ssp 2 WP(L) 2292 of 2011 Subsequently, it came to the notice of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner had supplied inferior quality of the said raw materials and contrary to the agreement. The Corporation thereafter initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount for the loss which they have sustained and also passed the impugned order of black-listing. 3. It is required to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments only qua black-listing of the petitioner and therefore, this Court is required to consider as to whether the black- listing of the petitioner is proper or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before black-listing the petitioner, no hearing was given to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice. In this connection, he placed reliance on a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.1 wherein it was held that “no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of black-listing. Blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned and therefore, hearing is required to be given to such person. 4. It is well settled position of law that before black-listing a person, he is required to be heard and principles of natural justice is 1 AIR 1989 SC 620 ssp 3 WP(L) 2292 of 2011 required to be complied with. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the order dated 23-05-2011, the petitioner was informed that they are required to deposit `4,07,341/-, is the amount of damages which the Corporation has sustained. In the said letter, it is also informed that due to above act i.e. not supplying the material as per the requirement, the name of the petitioner is being black listed and the amount which was paid as EMD will be recovered from any payable bills and that the said action will be taken within 15 days. Subsequently, the amount is recovered and further order was passed dated 20-09-2011, by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for three years with effect from 11-11-2011. Copies of the said letter/order are also sent to various State Transport Agencies in the country. 5. It is required to be noted that after the letter dated 23-05-2011, the petitioner had made a representation with the respondent-Corporation. However, no hearing was given to the petitioner and the attention of the petitioner was not specifically focused that they are going to be blacklisted for a particular period. Considering the fact that the impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioner, the same is required to be set aside. The impugned orders dated 23-05-2011 and 20-09-2011 regarding blacklisting the petitioner are accordingly set aside and the respondent-Corporation is directed to give appropriate hearing to ssp 4 WP(L) 2292 of 2011 the petitioner as to why he should not be blacklisted and after considering the say of the petitioner, appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)