S. Manikumar, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order, made in W.P. (MD) No. 125 of 2015, dated 09.03.2015, by which, the Writ Court, while setting aside the order, dated 04.09.2014, of the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Madurai, 1st respondent herein, has declined to interfere with the order, dated 16.03.2012 of the Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India, Madurai, 2nd respondent herein. Consequently, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to include his name in the panel of valuers.

2. Vide order, dated 16.03.2012, name of the appellant has been deleted from Bank's existing panel of valuers. Central Bank of India, Madurai, desired not to provide any valuation reports of its customers, to the appellant. Vide proceedings, dated 04.09.2014, for lack of professionalism, the appellant has been blacklisted from Bank's panel of valuers.

3. Before the Writ Court, contentions have been raised by the appellant that he was only a valuer and he is not excepted to ascertain the ownership of the property. He was not given any details, regarding ownership. The Bank has not given any valid reason for deletion of his name. He has discharged his duties from 07.08.2004, as an empanelled valuer, ascertaining the value of the building, physical features and market value of the property, but not the title or ownership of the said building. Contentions have been raised that principles of natural justice was not followed. Though he had given a detailed representation on 16.09.2014, to include his name in the list of panel valuers, the same was not considered, nor any reply was given.

4. The appellant has further contended that the very allegation that he has not ascertained the true ownership of the property, is not tenable and as per the terms and conditions, he has to only value the property, belonging to the loanee, referred to, by the Bank. To cover up the proceedings, dated 16.03.2012, removing the appellant from the panel of valuers, the bank has blacklisted him, casting stigma on his professional conduct.

5. Opposing the prayer to set aside the proceedings, dated 16.03.2012 and 04.09.2014, before the writ Court, the respondents-Bank has contended that inclusion or exclusion of a person, in the panel of valuers, is the exclusive domain of the Bank and that the Court would not interfere, with the same. Blacklisting has been defended.

6. Upon hearing both parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Court, at Paragraph 5, in W.P. (MD) No. 125 of 2015, dated 09.03.2015, ordered as hereunder :

"5. The only grievance of the petitioner is that in the show cause notice for blacklisting, it is stated that he has not considered the title to the property. The valuer has to ascertain the title as per the legal opinion. In this case, according to the petitioner, he was not given the legal opinion by the Bank. In any view of the matter, the reason for blacklisting the petitioner cannot be correct as it is not the case of the Bank that it is undervalued or overvalued nor it is the case of the Bank that the petitioner has given the legal opinion or violated the legal opinion. Therefore, it is still open to the Bank to issue fresh show cause notice not on this ground but the bank can issue show cause notice on the reasons best known to them regarding seeking blacklisting of the petitioner. As blacklisting can be done only after giving sufficient opportunity, the respondent shall afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed insofar as the first notice is concerned viz., deletion of the petitioner as it is their prerogative as per the judgment of this Court. Insofar as the notice regarding blacklisting the petitioner is concerned, the show cause notice is set aside with liberty to the Bank to issue a fresh show cause notice if they want to blacklist the petitioner. Since the