JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated 17th February, 1993 of the Kerala High Court dismissing the petitioners Writ Appeal No. 280 of 1993. Special leave granted.

2. Appellant is stated to be a firm of partners carrying on business as painting contractors. The appellant was on the list of eight qualified painting-contractors on the panel prepared by the respondent-Public Sector Undertaking. Appellants name was stated to be deleted from the list of. qualified contractors on account of what is stated to be a Vigilance Report. Consequently, the respondent did not issue the tender form for the work of Anti-Corrosive Coating of the Prilling Tower of urea plant in its factory to the appellant.

3. Before its name was deleted from the list of qualified contractors, appellant was not notified of the reason for the deletion. The tender forms were issued to the remaining seven contractors, out of whom only two submitted their quotations and one of them was issued the work order on 6th January, 1993. The appellant aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. The petition was filed on 19th January, 1993. The learned single Judge of the High Court has dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench dismissed the appellants appeal, and observed:

"Admittedly, following the procedure laid down in para 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 in regard to pre-qualification (as set out in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent) the appellants name was included in the list of contractors. Initially it was included in a list of 12 contractors as provided in the said rules and subsequently the appellants name was included in another list of 8 contractors consequent to the approval thereof by the Executive Director (Operation). The tender forms were issued on 1-6-1992 to the other seven parties, but not to the appellant."

"A reading of the counter-affidavit and the reply affidavit will disclose that there was enough relevant material before the FACT for taking a decision not to issue any tender form to the appellant, including the material relating to the inflated measurements given by the appellant in relation to one of the previous contracts."

4. We have heard Sri Siva Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri P. S Poti, learned senior counsel for the respondent. The deletion of the name of the appellant from the list of qualified contractors, says Sri Siva Subramaniam. in effect, amounts to black-listing, and that it is now settled law that before a persons reputation could be so affected, he is entitled to have an opportunity of being heard. We think that Sri Siva Subramaniam is right in his submission.

5. The Full Bench decision in V. Punnen Thomas v. State of Kerala, AIR 1969 Kerala 81, presents an interesting stage in the development of law on the matter. The facts were somewhat similar. The majority opinion in that case held:

"Surely, the term, "civil consequences" means something more than consequences which the person concerned does not like. There must be at least the possibility of an invasion of some civil right of his before it can be said that anything done in respect of him has civil consequences. A mere refusal to afford a man the prospect of doing profitable or unprofitable business with the Government, of entering into advantageous relationships with the Government as it has been put entails no civil consequences however serious a blow that might be to the person concerned."

"It is said that the impugned order casts a stigma on the petitioner. Assuming that it does, does that by itself attract the principle of natural justice? We think not. The question whether an impugned act involves a stigma or not is relevant only for the purpose of determining whether the act sounds only in the region of contract or involves a punishment attracting the rules of natural justice ..."

"To accept the contention of the petitioner would so widen the scope of the