http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 2

PETITIONER:

RAGHUNATH THAKUR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/11/1988

BENCH:

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

BENCH:

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:

1989 AIR 620 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 867

1989 SCC (1) 229 JT 1988 (4) 728

1988 SCALE (2)1326

ACT:

Administrative Law: Black listing--Right to be heard--

Making representation against the order--Necessity for.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant has bid in an auction of Beni Country

Liquor Shop in the District of Samastipur and was given the

shop being the highest bidder but he failed to deposit the

bid money in time.

The Collector, Samastipur by an order cancelled the bid

and black listed the appellant. He then moved the High Court

against the order of the Collector. The High Court upheld

the order of the Collector.

The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court,

HELD: 1. It is an implied principle of the rule of law

that any order having civil consequences should be passed

only after following the principles of natural justice.

Black-listing any person in respect of business ventures has

civil consequences for the future business of the person

concerned in any event. [868H; 869A]

2. 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. [869B]

In the instant case, that portion of the order

directing that the appellant be placed in the black-list in

respect of future contracts under the Collector is set

aside. So far as the cancellation of the bid of the

appellant is concerned, that is not affected. [869B-C]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4031 of

1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.4.1988 of the Patna High

PG NO 867

PG NO 868

Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1923 of 1988.

R.K. Jain, R.P.Singh and Y.D.Chandrachud for the Appellant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2

U.S. Prasad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.

The order dated 25th March, 1988 of the Collector is

under challenge in this appeal. The same reads as follows:

"Shri Raghu Nath Thakur S/o Late Gorakh Thakur, Village

Repura, P.S. Puksha, District Samastipur had bid for

Rs.11,900 (Rupees eleven thousands only) per month Dak in an

auction of Beni Country liquor shop held on 27.3.88 and he

as given the shop of Beni Country liquor but after signing

in Bandobasti Register he did not deposit dak amount.

The name of Shri Raghu Nath Thakur S/o Late Gorakh Nath

Village Repura, P.S. Pusa, Distt. Samastipur is therefore

placed in the black list for future under the orders passed

by the Collector, Samastipur."

This order was passed pursuant to the order of the

Collector. The letter dated 25th March, 1988, states as

follows:

"The Collector of the district after perusal of the

said office note passed order on 25.3.88 which is produced

in verbatim below:

Ist bidder chunki defaulter hai atah security prapt kar

len tatha bhavishya ke liae Black list karen. "

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

cons