ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has incorrectly held that the appellant has an alternative remedy, whereas, there is no alternative remedy to the appellant. He would submit that present is not an issue relating to claim of certain payments, but the appellant's challenge to the order of blacklisting rests on one of the main grounds that without proposing the action of blacklisting, the impugned order was passed, and therefore, it was contrary to the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal , (1975) 1 SCC 70 . He submits that the legal position is settled in the case of Erusian Equipment (supra) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He supports his contentions by relying on the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Private Limited & Ors. v. Food Corporation of India & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 551.

3. There is no representation made on behalf of the respondents.

4. The factual premise of the case stated in the writ petition is that notice was issued to the appellant on 13.08.2020 levelling allegations with regard to his ineligibility to participate in the process of tender for supply of Ayurvedic medicines. The appellant submitted reply on 18.08.2020 to the said notice. The reply of the appellant, however, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, an order was passed on 20.11.2020 by which the appellant was blacklisted.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that alleging certain deficiencies and conditions relating to eligibility, notice was issued to him, it was never proposed in the said notice that the petitioner may be blacklisted. Without admitting the allegations, the argument is that without giving a show cause notice, proposing action of blacklisting, no order of blacklisting can be passed by the respondents.

6. The consequences of non-observance of principles of natural justice before passing the order of blacklisting was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of its earlier decision in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal , (1975) 1 SCC 70 , in the following terms:

“12.....The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality.

15.....The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions. The black lists are instruments of coercion.

20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.”

7. The aforesaid legal position was succinctly stated in subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of them being- Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar , (1989) 1 SCC 229 , Gorakha Security Services v. Government (NCT