JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the short grievance of the petitioner is that by an order dated P/25 dated 6.10.2003, fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India have been contravened without due process of law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the order of black-listing is passed, the petitioner-Firm was not given any opportunity of hearing. The order clearly causes civil consequences. It is confiscatory in nature, therefore, the same could not have been passed without atleast complying with the bare minimum requirements of the principles of natural justice. In other words, the petitioner ought to have been heard before the impugned order Annexure P-25 was passed.
3. Mr. H.S. Sran vehemently argued that a perusal of the impugned order itself would demonstrate that the petitioner has failed to complete the work within the stipulated time limit and the respondents were left with no option but to take action against the petitioner-Firm.
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner merit acceptance. It is settled proposition of law that no administrative or quasi-judicial order can be passed adversely affecting the civil rights of a citizen of this country without due process of law.
5. In the present circumstances, the matter related to the right of livelihood of the petitioner. The rights to carry on any trade or business are guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India. It was, therefore, necessary for the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and seek his explanation with regard to any lapses allegedly committed by the petitioner. The petitioner also ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order Annexure P/25 was passed. After hearing the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondents to pass a speaking order dealing with all the objections that may be raised by the petitioner.
6. Undoubtedly, Order, Annexure P/25 has been passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. Consequently the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P/25 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondents for taking a fresh decision after complying with the Rules of Natural Justice i.e. after issuing a show cause notice, considering the reply filed by the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let the entire exercise be concluded within a period of two months from today.