1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.(MD).Nos.8916 & 1431 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1, 2, 3, 1, 2 & 3 of 2011 P.Nalliah ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 8916/2011 Kaliammal ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 1431/2011 -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 ... Respondents in W.P.(MD).No. 8916/2011 1. The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Madurai Region Madurai 2. The Manager Quality Control Civil Supplies Corporation Madurai 3. The Tahsildar Civil Supplies Corporation North Taluk Madurai ... Respondents in W.P.(MD).No.1431/2011 PRAYER IN W.P.(MD).No. 8916/2011: 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 vide Na.Ka.No. M.H5/14170/2011/1 dated 16.06.2011 confirming the order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No: P.S.1- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 21603-10 dated 15.04.2011 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. PRAYER IN W.P.(MD).No. 1431/2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. B1/11772/10 dated 31.12.10 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to renew the petitioner's hulling agreement for a further term. *** For Petitioners in both W.Ps. : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondents in 1 to 3 in WP.8916/11 and R3 in WP.1431/11 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For Respondents 1 and 2 in WP.1431/11 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar 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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 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. Sd/- 08/09/2011 This matter having been listed on Thursday, the twenty Nineth day of Two Thousand and Eleven for being mentioned. Purusant to the Order of this Court dated 08.09.2011 and made herein in the presence of the aforesaid Counsels on either side the Court made the following Order: The Writ Pettiion 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.Insofar as WP(MD)No.8916 of 2011 filed by P.Nalliah is concerned, it is stated that there is no order cancelling the contract. In such view of the matter, the question of approaching the competent authority for redressal does not arise. 3.Accordingly, the order in WP(MD)No.8916 of 2011 stands corrected as above. Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to read as part of the Order dated 8.9.2011 Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 4. The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Madurai Region Madurai 5. The Manager Quality Control Civil Supplies Corporation Madurai 6. The Tahsildar Civil Supplies Corporation North Taluk, Madurai +Two Ccs to Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, Advocate, SR.Nos.30722,30723 +One cC to Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR.No.30612 +One cc to M/s.M.Govindan, Advocate,SR.No.30875 vsg rl/11c- 22.9.2011 W.P.(MD).Nos.8916 & 1431 of 2011 08.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/