JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri. B.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the second, third and the fourth respondents.

2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 13.5.2019 passed by the third respondent/Vice Chairman, Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for the purposes of allotment of contract of work by the Gorakhpur Development Authority and a penalty of Rs. 20 lacs has been imposed. A further prayer is made for disposal of a representation made in this regard by the petitioner before the third respondent.

3. The facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner is a contractor registered with the Gorakhpur Development Authority engaged for the purposes of construction work for the past several years, and was directed by the respondent authorities to complete the work of construction of a culvert on a drain on urgent basis. It has been averred that after completion of the work some of the bricks used temporarily for supporting the concrete remained left over, and taking that to be the basis the impugned order dated 13.5.2019 has been passed by the third respondent blacklisting the petitioner permanently and imposing Rs. 20 lacs as penalty for the alleged use of old bricks in the construction work.

4. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal as per the Rules of the Court.

5. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of blacklisting dated 13.5.2019 has been passed against the petitioner without giving any show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing hence the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

6. It has been pointed out that the order of blacklisting which has been passed is not for any specified period of time and any such order having a permanent effect is not sustainable. It is also submitted that the impugned order does not refer to any enquiry which could be said to form basis of the order of blacklisting and that the effect of the order is not only stigmatic but it also has adverse civil consequences and as such cannot be legally sustained.

7. Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the second, third and the fourth respondents has not been able to point out from the order impugned that the same has been passed pursuant to any fact finding enquiry or that the petitioner was given any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing before passing of the order of blacklisting. There is no material on record to show that the principles of natural justice were complied with before passing of the order.

8. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties we may advert to the meaning of "blacklist" and "blacklisting" and in this regard reference may be drawn to the enunciation of the aforementioned terms in the legal dictionaries.

9. The term "blacklist" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition) in the following manner:

"To put the name of (a person) on a list of those who are to be boycotted or punished."

10. Wharton's Law Lexicon (Wharton's Law Lexicon, 17th Edition) refers to the term "blacklist" as follows:

"The term given to any list of persons with whom the person or body compiling the list advises no one should have dealings of the character indicated. Thus the list of defaulters on the Stock Exchange is so named and various societies and individuals also publish lists with a similar purpose."

11. The terms "blacklist" and "blacklisting" have been described in Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar Volume 1, 6th Edition) in the following manner:

"Black list is a list of persons or firms against whom its compiler would warn the public, or some section of the public; a list of pe