ORDER
1. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 80 and 79 of 1977 have been heard together as a common point of law arises for decision on similar facts. In C. W. J. C. No. 80 of 1977 Gopal Nath Sharma, the petitioner in this case, has prayed that the order contained in Annexure-2 of 9th Aug. 1975 be quashed. In C. W. J. C. No. 79 of 1977, the petitioner, namely Bhola Nath Choudhary has prayed that the order contained in Annexure-3 of the same date be quashed. The petitioner in either case by the said Annexure has been black-listed permanently and debarred from purchasing any forest coupe and to work as an agent of any forest contractor in the Bihar Forest Department. The orders contained in both the annexures have been passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar and the same were communicated to the petitioners by the Divisional Forest Officers concerned who are respondent No. 3 in the writ petitions.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they had been doing forest contract business under Forest Department for about 15 years, during the course of which they had specialised and adopted forest contract as their livelihood and have made huge investments in machines etc., and for organising a big establishment. They have executed a good number of important forest contracts satisfactorily and with credit. It appears from Annexure-2 that petitioner Gopal Nath Sharma the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 80 of 1977 had purchased two coupes in Saranda Forest Division during 1973-74 from the Forest Department and he had to deposit Rs. 55,805.00 intially for obtaining work order. The allegation is that he did not actually deposit that amount but produced Treasury chalans showing that the said deposit had been made by him. It transpired subsequently that the chalans were forged. After detection of the forgery a police case was instituted on information lodged by respondent No. 3. That case is said to be pending. The working of the coupes purchased by the petitioner was stopped, all forest produce lying in his depot were seized and the renewal of the term of the depot was not allowed. It is said that the said petitioner filed two writ petitions before this Court being C. W J. C. Nos. 1837 and 1838 of 1974 against the above orders. Both the writ petitioners were heard on the 10th of Jan. 1975 and it is
stated in the petition that they had been dismissed (in limine) at the time of admission. The portion of the order contained in Annexure-2 against which the petitioners have made a grievance in this petition is as follows:
“The facts stated above would indicate that Shri G.N. Sharma is thoroughly unreliable and is not fit to be intrusted with any contract in the Bihar Forest Department.
It is hereby ordered that Shri G.N. Sharma be permanently black-listed and debarred from purchasing any coupe and to work as agent of any forest contractor in the Bihar Forest Department.”
3. The other case (C. W. J. C. 79 of 1977) is that of Bhola Nath Choudhary, Annexure-3 related to the purchases that had been made by the said petitioner during the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 in Saranda Forest Division, in four lots the total price of which was Rs. 1,67,500.00, out of that amount the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 78,150.00 as the initial instalment. It is alleged in Annexure-3 that he did not actually deposit the said amount of Rs. 78,150.00 towards the instalment and produced Treasury Chalans showing payment of the said amount and on the basis thereof obtained work order for extracting forest produce from the coupes purchased by him. Subsequently, it transpired that the report was lodged by respondents No. 3 with the police with regard to the same and a case was instituted which is said to be pending. This petitioner also filed two writ cases before this Court being C. W. J. C. Nos. 1834 and 1835 of 1974 both of which were dismissed on the 10th of Jan. 1975. (According to the petitioner the dismissal was in limine at the time of admission). After reciting the above facts, amongst other facts, the following orders were passed (vide Annexure No. 3)
“The facts stated above would indicate that Shri B, N. Choudhary is thoroughly unreliable and is not fit to be intrusted with any contract in the Bihar Forest Department.
It is hereby ordered that Shri B. N. Choudhary be permanently black-listed and debarred from purchasing any coupe and to work as agent of any forest contractor in the Bihar Forest Deptt.”
4. It is, therefore, manifest that identical orders black-listing and debarring the petitioners from purchasing any coupe and to work as an agent of any forest contractor in the Forest Department of the Government of Bihar have been passed.
5. Mr. Balabhadra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3 respectively, are vitiated and involved civil consequences to the petitioners and even then the petitioners were not given any opportunity of making a representation against the proposal to black-list and debar them as mentioned above.
6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 in which the facts stated in the Annexures have been reiterated and it has been said that the petitioners did have an opportunity of making representation before this court at the time of admission of the writ applications filed by them which had been heard and dismissed. It has not, however, been denied that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to make representation or to be heard with regard to the proposal to black-list and debar them as above.
7. In support of his contention Mr. Singh cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 266) in which under similar circumstances it had been held as followSection (at p. 269)
“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 relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.”
8. Elaborate reasons have been given in the judgment of the Supreme Court for holding the above view. It would appear that the petitioners who had filed the writ cases before the Supreme Court were also contractors under the Government, the Government being the Government of West Bengal and the question which had been raised there for decision of the Supreme Court was identical with that which arises in the writ cases on hand, namely, as to whether the person who is put on the black-list by the Government is entitled to be heard before his name is put on the black-list. The petitioners in the said case had been black-listed on the ground of justification for believing that the firm had been guilty of malpractice such as bribery, corruption and fraud. They had been blacklisted on the ground that there were proceedings pending against them for alleged violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. It was found that the blacklisting order did not pertain to any particular contract and that it was a blanket bar as in the cases before us and it created a barrier between the persons black-listed and the Government in the matter of transactions, as such the orders involved civil consequences and cast a slur on the petitioners. It has been pointed out that where the State is dealing with individuals in transactions of sales and purchase of goods, the two important factors are that an individual is entitled to trade with the Government and an individual is entitled to a fair and equal treatment with others. A duty to act fairly can be interpreted as meaning a duty to observe certain aspects of rules of natural justice, which they found had been denied in the case of the petitioners who had preferred the writ applications before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the writs and directed that the authorities should give opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case and the authorities would hear the petitioners as to whether their names should be put on the blacklist or not.
9. Since the cases of the petitioners in the writ applications before us stand almost on the same footing as in the above reported case, there is no reason why a similar order should not be made in their favour as admittedly they were not given any opportunity of making representation against the proposal of black-listing them and debarring them from obtaining contracts from the Forest Department and acting as agents of any contractor of the Forest Department, of the Government.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 contended that the reasons on the basis of which the petitioners have been black-listed and debarred have already been set forth in the Annexures 2 and 3. He has further pointed out that certain representations had been made by the petitioners before the blacklisting orders had been passed.
He, however, conceded that those representations did not relate to the question as to whether or not they should be blacklisted and debarred. In fact, it appears that the petitioners had no information of the fact that the orders blacklisting and debarring them would be passed by the authorities concerned even before the decision of the cases instituted against them. In the circumstances it is obvious that the petitioners did not get any opportunity of making a representation and of being heard in respect of the orders in Annexures 2 and 3 blacklisting and debarring them.
11. The writ applications are therefore, allowed and it is hereby directed that the authorities will give opportunity to the petitioners to represent their cases and they will hear the petitioners as to whether their names should be put on the blacklist or not. It is made clear that their decision On this question will not have any effect on the proceedings which are pending against the petitioners and any decision of the authorities on blacklisting will have no effect on the correctness of any of the facts involved in those proceedings. Annexures 2 and 3 are hereby quashed subject to the above direction. There will be no order as to costs.