THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009 Dt.24.9.2009 Between: M/s. Sun Rise International Labs Ltd., Pharmaceutical Division, Plot No.100, Lane J, Sector-II, Phase-II, IDA Cherlapally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri J. Rajmouli and another … Appellants And The State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Building Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by an order dt.18.6.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.24504 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. After hearing the learned Advocates, we admit the appeal and in pursuance of the request made by the learned Advocates, the appeal has been finally heard. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants-petitioners had entered into a contract with respondent No.3 to supply Paracetamol and Calcium tablets to respondent No.3. According to respondent No.3, the drugs supplied by the appellants were not upto the mark and therefore name of the appellants had been blacklisted by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the aforestated action, the appellants had filed the aforestated petition. The petition had been rejected and therefore this appeal has been filed. Certain disputed questions of fact with regard to quality of drugs supplied by the appellants have been raised. The appellants had also prayed for release of the balance amount payable to them by respondent No.3. We do not propose to go into the disputed questions of fact with regard to the quality of the drugs or the amount payable by respondent No.3 to the appellants. As the drugs which had been supplied have not been examined by the Laboratory at the instance of respondent No.3, it would be open to the concerned parties to get the disputes resolved before appropriate Civil Court. The only question remains is whether the appellants could have been blacklisted without issuing any notice. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 has fairly submitted that before passing the impugned order, whereby the appellants had been blacklisted, no notice of whatsoever type had been given to the appellants. In our opinion, the action of blacklisting is against the settled principles of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. V. State of West Bengal[1] has held that before blacklisting, a notice must be given to the concerned party so that the concerned party can have an opportunity to represent his/its case. In view of the above admitted fact, that without giving any notice of whatsoever type, the appellants had been blacklisted, we quash and set aside the order of respondent No.2, No.222/E&S-4/2007, dt.26.8.2008. It will be open to respondent No.2 to take appropriate action in accordance with law for blacklisting the appellants, if he desires to do so. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24.9.2009 bnr [1] (1975) 1 SCC 70