ORDER
Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. When the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
…to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the second respondent, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Thanjavur made in No. 87911/KO 18D/89 U.Vs. dated 1.9.1989 and to quash the same and further direct the second respondent to remove the name of the petitioner herein from the black-list….
3. The petitioner herein challenges an order of the second respondent dated 1.9.1989 and also prays to direct the second respondent to remove his name from the black-list. The petitioner herein is working as a II Class Contractor in Public Works Department from 10.11.1981. It seems the petitioner was allotted to do repair in Raja Mirasdar Hospital, Thanjavur at an estimated amount of Rs. 20,000. It is alleged in the affidavit that the said work has been successfully completed by the petitioner, that he had submitted a bill and that he has noted therein that a certain amount of Rupees has been included in the said bill. It is also alleged in the affidavit that when the petitioner has enquired about that to the concerned Junior Engineer the said Junior Engineer has demanded Rs. 1,000 for the inclusion of the amount in the bill for which no work has been done. It seems the petitioner has preferred a complaint to the Superintendent Engineer, Executive Engineer and Minister for Public Works Department by letter dated 2.5.1989, and based on the complaint an enquiry was ordered to be held on 10.5.1989 in which the petitioner herein and four other contractors took particle It seems the Executive Engineer, Thanjavur conducted the said enquiry. After the said enquiry, on 10.5.1989a letter was issued stating that action is being initiated against the concerned Junior Engineer. At this stage, it is alleged that the Executive Engineer, who has conducted the said enquiry has been transferred to Madras and a new incumbent come to his place. It is alleged in the affidavit, that the petitioner has received the impugned letter all of a sudden stating that he has been black-listed for three years. It is stated that the impugned order has to be set aside as it has been passed without any enquiry. It is further alleged that there was no charge against the petitioner. It is further stated the assuming that the respondents can take, action for giving a complaint, the aggrieved person would be the concerned Junior Engineer against whom a complaint has been given and not the Department and that the impugned order is unsustainable. It is further stated that in any event. Without a show-cause action, the impugned order has been passed and as such, it has to be set aside.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed an administrative order in the year 1977 which provides for ‘suspension of business’ and as such the petitioner was restricted from obtaining tender schedule from Thanjavur division only for three years and that no question of black-listing arose in this case. It is further stated that the petitioner has not been blacklisted, but has been restricted only from obtaining tender schedule for three years from Thanjavur division which is a temporary punishment and that suspension of business is entirely different from black-list. The counter-affidavit further narrates the facts and certain complaints made against the petitioner.
5. Mr. B. Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is highly arbitrary and illegal and that it cannot be passed without a notice. The learned Counsel relies upon the decision in Erusian and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. which has been followed in Raghunath Thakurv. State of Bihar and argues that the impugned order has to be set aside on the question of principles of natural justice, learned Counsel further argues that there is no difference between the act of black-listing restricting from obtaining a tender-schedule for three years from Thanjavur division and ‘suspension of business’ and that the effect be one and the same i.e., preventing the petitioner from doing a ‘business’ in a particular way.
6. Mr. J.K. Bhavanandam, the learned Additional Government Pleader strenuously contends that this is not a case of black-listing but it is a case of ‘suspension of business’. Learned Counsel further contends that it is only a temporary punishment and that no notice is necessary and if the Department wants to black-list the petitioner it will be done only later. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Department is that the impugned order has been issued only is continuance of the administrative order which was issued in the year 1987.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside on the simple ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is admitted in the counter affidavit it is a temporary punishment and it has been further stated that ‘suspension of business’ is entirely different from restricting the petitioner from obtaining tender schedules for three years from Thanjavur division. In the counter-affidavit ‘suspension of business’ has been stated as follows:
…”suspension of business” may be ordered for an indefinite period. Where pending full enquiry into the allegations, the competent authority is of the view that it is not desirable that business with contractor should continue. Such an order may be passed if the competent authority is prima facie of the view that the contractor is guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude in relation to business dealings which if established, would result in his removal/black listing (Banning of Business Dealings)….
Based on this, the impugned order is defended by the learned Additional Government Pleader. I do not think the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is correct. Whether it is ‘suspension of business’ or black-listing’ the result will be that the petitioner is prevented from doing business i.e., contracting with the Government. It is also admitted in the counter-affidavit that it is a temporary punishment. If it is so, I do not think why the principles laid down by Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. , are not applicable to the facts of this case. Even the act of suspension of business’ in my view, has the effect of preventing the petitioner from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. In my view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court for black-listing equally applies to the case of ‘suspension of business’ As such, I am of the view that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principle sofnaturaljusticeand accordingly, it has to be set aside.
8. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition will stand allowed. No costs, it is open to the authorities to issue a notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action, if they want to pursue the matter further.