( 1 ) PETITIONER was a contractor who submitted a tender for a certain contruction. It was to remain open for 60 days from 19. 9. 78. His tender was lowest but was not accepted. Instead he was asked to extend validity till 19. 12. 78 which he agreed. But then on 30. 11. 78, he found steep rise of cost of materials and withdrew the offer. On 2. 12. 78, Govt. informed the Xen Incharge that petitioner s offer was accepted. Petitioner had deposited earnest money from which Govt. could deduct 10% for any default of petitioner. This 10% was deducted and the rest was refunded. After 6 months on 20. 6. 79, a memo. was issued to the petitioner that by his withdrawal he had acted in a un-business like manner and he should show-cause why his name should not be removed from the approved list. He gave a detailed reply adding that the fact of acceptance of his tender was never communicated to him The Govt. then passed an order of black-listing him for 2 years. He challanged this order by petition U/art. 226. Judgment para 11, on words is :

( 2 ) IT is now settled law that before a person can be black-listed he is entitled to be heard. The leading authority on this point is the case of