Judgment

RAY, C. J.:- The two Writ Petitions and the Civil Appeal raise the question as to whether a person who is put on the black list by the State Government is entitled to a notice to be heard before the name is put on the black list.

2. Sale of Cinchona is held by the State Government at meetings of the Sales Committee. Sealed quotations are invited from intending buyers. The State maintains a list of buyers or bidders. The State has the right to reject a bid at an auction.

3. The petitioners in the Writ Petitions were engaged in the business of purchase and export of Cinchona products between the years 1966 and 1971. They submitted tender for purchase of Cinchona. Their tender was accepted. They entered into contracts with the State Government during those years for purchase of Cinchona for large sums of money.

4. The petitioners submitted tender once on 15 February, 1973 and again on 4 December, 1973. The petitioners allege that since the month of December, l970 all offers of the petitioners were rejected though in most cases their offer was the highest. The petitioners contend that there is discrimination and lack of fair play at the sale. The petitioners submit that they are entitled to receive the same treatment and to be given the same chance as anybody else for the purchase of Cinchona. The petitioners are interested in the purchase of Cinchona in course of their trade and business.

5. The respondent State alleges that the petitioners were guilty of misdeclaration of goods in their export transactions. The Sales Committee of the State learnt from a secret letter from the Collector of Customs, Calcutta that the firm of the petitioners was involved in malpractices, and their case was under investigation. The Sales Committee at a meeting on 21 January, 1971 resolved not to deal with the firm of the petitioners till the firm was cleared of charges of malpractices. It is because of this resolution that the tender of the petitioners was not accepted. The petitioners according to the respondent came to know this resolution at the meeting of the Sales Committee on 4 December, 1973. The State could not however produce the original resolution in this court.

6. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners have challenged the charges and cases under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act in the High Court at Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 959 of 1973 which is pending.

7. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1974 was on the approved list of the Director General, Supplies and Disposals since the year 1942. The last renewal of registration of the respondent was on 5 June, 1963 for three years. Certain reports were received against the respondent regarding shortage of timber. The Special Police Establishment took charge of account books of the respondent in the month of August, 1964. A Departmental enquiry was made against the store-keeper and the Store-holder in the Bombay Telephone Workshop. Those two employees were suspended in the month of December, 1964. On 4 December, 1965 the department put the name of the respondent on the black list. The employees of the Government who had been suspended in the year 1964 were dismissed on 1 June, 1967. In the month of January, 1968 the respondent applied to the Court for return of the account books which had been taken by the Special Police Establishment. In the month of March, 1968 the account books were ordered to be returned.

8. The respondent filed Writ Petition in the High Court at Bombay on 20 January , 1969. On 12 January, 1973 the High Court allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent setting aside the order whereby the respondent was black listed. The State filed an appeal. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is against that judgment.

9. The employees who had been dismissed lay the State also applied to the High Court for setting aside their dismissal. The High Court accepted the prayer of the employees by an order dated 3 August, 1972.

10. In Writ Petitio