IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 224 of 2009 Decided on: 14.3.2012 1. M/s. M.K. Enterprises through its Sole Proprietor, Mukesh Sharma, SCO No. 187 (Top Floor), Sector 7, Chandigarh. 2. Mukesh Sharma, Sole Proprietor, M/s. M.K. Enterprises,SCO No. 187 (Top Floor), Sector 7, Chandigarh. .......Petitioners Versus H.P. Agro Industries Corporation through its Managing Director, Ground Floor, Nigam Vihar Complex, Shimla-171002. .......Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayer:- “(ii) After perusal of the record, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notification/Order dated 18.10.2008, Annexure P-5 vide which the petitioners have been blacklisted illegally and without issuance of show cause notice violating the principles of natural justice and the ratio declared by the Supreme Court of India to the effect that blacklisting order cannot be passed without affording opportunity of hearing and adhering to the principles of natural justice.” 2. A similar issue was considered by this Court leading to judgment dated 5.4.2010 in CWP No. 460 of 2009. The operative portion of the judgment reads, as follows:- “ It is admitted case that before the impugned Annexure P-4 was issued, no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to make at least a representation with regard to blacklisting. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the communications between the parties would give sufficient indication to the effect that the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunities. True, the files disclose several communications between the parties but the crucial question is whether the petitioner has been put to notice as to whether respondent-Corporation proposed to blacklist the petitioner? Sans that expression blacklisting, the communications reveal and indicate so many other things. In view of the settled position that the affected party should be given notice before the extreme consequence of blacklisting is imposed, we set aside Annexure P-4, without prejudice to the liberty to the respondent-Corporation to initiate appropriate proceedings as permitted under the law but in accordance with law.” 3. The writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgment, as extracted above, setting aside Annexure P-5, with liberty as referred to above. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 14, 2012 (Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary), (pankaj) Judge.