1989 PLP 4237 (MLD)

(i) Whether the suit is not competent (ii) Whether the defendants have legally and validly black listed the plaintiff? (iii) Relief. Subsequently on an application filed by the respondents, two other preliminary issues were added in the following terms:‑‑ ' (i) Has the suit became untenable because of the elapse of the contractual period involved in the contract? (ii) 'Did not the suit merely for a declaration lie? The trial Court vide its order dated 12‑4‑1909 decided the two preliminary issues against the respondents and decided to proceed with the suit. Thereafter evidence of the parties was recorded. The Court found issue No. 2 against the petitioner and dismissed his suit. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal in which the view taken up by the District Judge was that no relief regarding black listing of the petitioner by the respondents could be granted as the period of contract had run out and respondents could not be directed to continue receiving supply from the petitioner. This revision petition assails two judgments of the two Courts below.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is now 1.10 P.M. but no body has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by black listing the petitioner, a stigma has been cast upon him and further that though it is correct that the respondents are under no obligation and cannot be forced to enter into any contract with the petitioner yet the petitioner cannot be debarred from submitting his tender and from being considered for the purpose of grant of contract. According to the learned counsel the effect of black listing is to deprive the petitioner from his right to carry on business particularly with an office/organization under control of the respondent‑Government.

5. The word black listing according to its dictionary connotation means list of Bankrupts, Drunkards, enemies or others, against whom it is necessary to give warning to other concerned persons. It thus becomes clear that by black‑listing it person a hindrance is caused in way of a person to work in particular field and a stigma is cast on him. In the present case it is to be noticed the respondent, defendant No.2 is the Province of Punjab while respondent No. 1 is one of its functionary. The order of blacklisting is alleged to have been passed in the exercise of the powers derived by the respondent under a regulation. The reason for blacklisting the petitioner as disclosed in the written statement is that it has been acting fraudulently and in breach of various contracts with the Government. Since definite allegations were made against the petitioner by the respondent it was incumbent upon them to have at least given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The two Courts below appear to have misconstrued the legal proposition by holding that the suit wits barred by section 56 of Specific Relic Act 1877. Since no injunction was being claimed, the question of applicability of section 56 did no arise. The suit properly fell under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. For all these reasons, the judgments of the Courts below arc not sustainable. As the learned District Judge has failed to decide the issue on merits, the two courses were open to this Court either to, have remanded the case to the Additional District Judge or to decide all the issues. I have chosen to follow the later course as the suit between the parties was filed as far back as in 1963 i.e. about more than 25 years ago and all the material available on the record is sufficient to dispose of the suit. The plaintiff in para. 4 of the plaint has specifically alleged that no opportunity to show‑cause was granted by the respondent before passing the impugned order. Though para 4 was denied in the written statement but it was not asserted that any notice was given. In this case the petitioner had served upon the respondents interrogaties the answers to which were furnished by them. Question No. 2 and C the answer given thereto is reproduced as under:‑‑ Q.2:‑‑"Admit that the order was passed without issuing a previous show cause notice. Ans. Admitted" In face of this admission it is quite evident that no notice was served upon the petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the respondent was void being against the principle of natural justice In this view of the matter this revision is accepted. The judgments and decrees of two Courts below are set aside and the suit of the petitioner is decreed to the extent that the order of black listing passed by the respondents against the petitioner is declared to be void. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-1508/L Revision accepted.