V.K. Jain, J. (ORAL);—

A Consortium named M/s Brite Aricon(Consortium) consisting of two companies M/s B.R. Arora and Associates Private Limited and M/s Aricon Developers Private Limited entered into a contract with the respondent Airports Authority of India for the work of expansion of apron, construction of additional taxi way, extension of runway and allied works at Varanasi Airport. The work was required to be completed by 11th March, 2009 and according to the petitioner, the said work was completed to the satisfaction of the respondents on 20th August, 2010 and a certificate dated 11th December, 2010 in this regard was issued. Vide order dated 1st July, 2013 passed by AGM Engg(C), the respondent Airports Authority of India decided that henceforth Airports Authority of India shall not award any contract to the said Consortium or to any firm or company having business link in the form of joint venture agreement or the like with. It appears from a perusal of the said order that some recommendation was made by CBI for blacklisting the contractor who was awarded the work of expansion of apron, construction of additional taxi way, extension of runway and allied works at Varanasi Airport. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the recommendations received from CBI and after producing the relevant record in this regard.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to them by the respondent Airports Authority of India before blacklisting of the above referred entities. It is by now a settled proposition of the law that since an order blacklisting an individual or a firm or a company, visits the blacklisted person with serious civil consequences, no such order can be passed without following the basic principles of natural justice which comprise issuing a show cause notice against the proposed blacklisting, followed by an opportunity of hearing to the noticee. Admittedly, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the aforesaid entities before the order was passed.

3. In Raghunath Thakur vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 229, where Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-

“4. … It has to be realized that black-listing any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order.” In Vinay Construction Co. & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. [116(2005) DLT 14], this Court rejected the contention that there can be indefinite period of blacklisting, holding that since blacklisting carries a very severe consequence and needs to be for a prescribed period. In A. Rajendran vs. The General Manager [Writ Petition No.17517 of 2002 decided on 16.10.2003], the Madras High Court, noticing that the order of blacklisting the petitioner did not specify the period of blacklisting, quashed the said order, thereby upholding the contention that blacklisting could not be for an indefinite period. In Well Protect Manpower Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 117(2005) DLT 293 (DB), this Court, inter alia, held as under:-

“14. There is no gainsaying that any order or decision in matters involving civil consequences has to be made consistently with rules of natural justice. A ''civil consequence'' is an infraction of not merely property or personal rights but also of material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. [See: Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Ors. [1978]2SCR272 ]. It is true that the rules of natural justice can neither be cast in a rigid mould nor put in a legal strait jacket. They ''are not cut and dried. They vary indefinitely'' said Lord Denning M.R. in Regina v. Home Secretary, Ex. P. Santillo, (1981) Q.B. 778. Thus, the principles

Click Here to Read the rest of this document