1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2558 OF 2007 Javed Rafiul Hasan Khan .. Petitioner. Versus Indian Oil Corporation .. Respondent. Mr.C.G. Gavnekar i/by Sunil Singh for the petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Shetye i/by Sarkar & Sarkar for the respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 21st January, 2008 DATED : 21st January, 2008 DATED : 21st January, 2008 P.C. : 1. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 6-9-2007 vide which the petitioner who had a contract with the respondent has been black-listed for malpractices in terms of the Transport Discipline Guidelines. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the course of action we propose to take, it is not necessary for us to refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it to note that the petitioner had been granted Bulk POL transport contract. Agreements were signed between the parties. According to the respondents, the petitioner was involved in malpractices and there was shortage in different trucks which in the 2 opinion of the authorities amounted to malpractices. 2. The main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the order dated 6-9-2007 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without granting any hearing to the petitioner. After passing of the order, the petitioner submitted detailed representation dated 19-9-2007, to which no reply was received and the respondents have failed to recall order dated 6-9-2007. It is not disputed before us that personal hearing or right to reply to the show-cause before the petitioners were actually black-listed was not provided, adherence to the AUDI-ALTERAM-PARTEM would be essential in cases of black-listing. 3. In all fairness, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, upon instructions, have stated that they would hear the petitioner and the petitioner may appear before the respondents authorities on 29-1-2008 at 11.00 a.m. and after granting hearing, the authorities would also take into consideration the written reply dated 19-9-2007 and any other documents, if filed within three days from today and pass appropriate orders within one week thereafter. 4. However, in the facts and circumstances of 3 the case, we would decline to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 6-9-2007. In any case, the petitioner has approached this Court after sufficient gap of time and delay caused on his own part. The order dated 6-9-2007 shall be subject to any other orders that may be passed. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.