ORDER
1. Heard Shri Bijan Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for opp. party No. 1 and Or, D. Mishra, learned counsel for opp. party No. 2.
2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In this application, it assails the order No. 4454 dated 24-4-1996 (Annexure-8) by which the State Government has blacklisted it.
3. Shri Ray contends that the impugned order (Annexure-8) was passed without any notice far less hearing the petitioner. He also alleges that the impugned order was passed maliciously and with ulterior motive at the behest of opp. party No.2 (Principal-Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Panchayati Raj Department). He has filed certain applications against the opp. party No. 2 for taking legal action against him.
4. By order No. 5 dated 8-5-1996 this Court directed the Secretary of the Government in the Panchayati Raj Department to file affidavit indicating whether before the petitioner was blacklisted, an opportunity of hearing was given to it. Pursuant to the said direction, the Secretary has filed his counter affidavit on 10-5-1996.
5. It is now well-settled that blacklisting a person entails in civil consequence's and rules of natural justice require that the concerned person should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is blacklisted. This is the view taken by this Court as back as 1971 in Purna Chandra Das v. Director of Public Instruction, Orissa : 1971 (1) CWR 147. The said ratio was reiterated in Govinda Choudhury v. State of Orissa through the Secretary, Works Department:' 1972 (1) CWR 583. The Supreme Court in M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bangal, AIR 1975 SC 266 has held that the 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 concerned-authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. In Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer (PWD), Ernakulam : AIR 1978 SC 930, the aforesaid position of law was reiterated.
6. The aforesaid being the undisputed legal position on let us new consider the cotention of Shri Ray as to whether the petitioner was blacklisted without any notice. At this stags, it would be appropriate to quote the impugned order:
'No. TSH(l)-21/95--4454PR Dated 24-04-1996 From : Shri C. Das, Jiont Secretary to Govt.To All Project Directors,District Rural Development AgencySub: Blacklisting Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technnology, Bhubaneswer. Sir, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), Bhubaneswar had taken Govt. grants from D.R.D. A., Puri and D.R.D. A.. Khurda from 1994. On receipt of complaint, an Audit Party was sent for inspection of the organisation as per terms of agreement on 24-4-1996. But the Secretary of KIIT refused to allow inspection of document in his letter No. 625/98 dated 24-4-1996. In view of this KIIT is blacklisted. No TRYSEM trainees would be sant by DRDAs, nor training stipend would be given to KIIT.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- 24-4-1996
Joint Secretary to Govt.''
7. As it appears, the Joint Secretary to the Government in the Panchayati Raj Department in his, letter No. 443 dated 24-4-1996 (Annexure-7) intimated the petitioner that an audit party had been sent to its office for audit and inspection on 24-4-1996 and co-operation on the matter was sought for. It was stated in the said letter that the petitioner has taken TRYSEM infrastructure grants amounting to Rs. 12.33 lakhs from Project Director, D. R. D. A.. Puri and Rs. 12.33 lakhs from Project Director, D. R. 6. A., Khurda and the audit party would audit and inspect the details of the accounts for the aforesaid amounts. The petitioner on the same day as per Annexure-7/1 replied to the Joint Secretary that adequate notice should have been given to keep the accounts and documents in readiness and requested to take up the audit from 8-5-1996. Peculiarly, the said Joint Secretary on that day itself (24-4-1996) has passed the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner. In these circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that no notice for less any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before it was blacklisted.
8, For the aforesaid reasons, the imougned order at Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in law which is hereby quashed,
9. The writ application is accordingly allowed.