By the Court.—The petitioner is a registered contractor of category ‘A’ with the respondent No. 2. She is aggrieved by order dated 23.1.2004 passed by Regional Food Controller Agra Division,Agra (the respondent No. 2) by which the petitioner’s registration as Class ‘A’ contractor has been cancelled and the petitioner has been black listed. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner had got herself registered under category ‘A’ after concealing material facts, therefore,it was not necessary to afford an opportunity before passing the order dated 23.1.2004.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that had there been any illegality or misrepresentation/fraud committed by the petitioner while obtaining the registration, it should have been informed to the petitioner in the form of show cause notice so that she could rebut the same but without notice the order should not have been passed as the cancellation of registration will affect not only the present Registration with the respondent but it will debar the petitioner from being registered in other Government departments, which will affect the livelihood of the petitioner.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before cancelling his registration and passing an order of black listing. This has also been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the State respondents. It is settled position of law that when an order leads to civil consequences and the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing that cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. A.K. Mithiborwala and others, AIR 1975 SC 266, held that:

12........ The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination. The order of black-listing 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 black-listing. 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 black-listing order does not pertain to any particular contract. The black-listing order involves civil consequences. It caste a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons black-listed and the Government in the matter of transactions. The blacklists are “instruments of coercion”.

7. In the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others, AIR (sic) SC 620, the Apex Court has taken the view that even if rules do not provide to offer an opportunity of hearing before passing an order of Black-listing then also opportunity of hearing is necessary before passing the order which leads to civil consequences. In paragraph 4 of the judgement it has been held that:

4. Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of black-listing the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before black-listing any person. In so far as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that black-listing any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future bu