' ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- According to the contents of this writ petition, several purchase orders (Annexure "A") were placed upon the petitioner by the respondent No, 1 . He commenced and made some supply. However, could not complete the same within the stipulated time because of illness and other reasons as well which were intimated to the respondents. However, it was decided to cancel the said purchase orders and to make purchases at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner protested and ultimately received a letter on 21-6-2008 (Annexure "I") whereby the petitioner was black-listed. This document was circulated in all the relevant formations.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No,1 was not at all competent to black-list the petitioner-firm and that too in a manner that he cannot do business with any concerned department. According to the learned counsel, the order has been passed without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing. He also pressed for the payment of the price of the supplied goods and to release the forfeited securities and advances. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1, on the other hand, argues that since the petitioner failed to perform his part of the contract and the purchase orders were cancelled, the respondent was within its right to black-list the petitioner.
3. I have considered the said submissions and gone through the several documents appended with this file. The parties entered into a contract for sale and purchase of goods. The respondents have accused the petitioner for breach of contract and has initiated the process for recovering the alleged damages. The petitioner, on the other hand, pleads that he has not committed any breach of contract and that the supplies were delayed for sufficient reasons. Be that as it may, this matter is ultimately to be decided by a competent Court of law in a suit to be filed by either of the parties.
4. So far as the question of black-listing is concerned, the Constitution guarantees the right of a citizen to conduct any lawful trade or business. This, of course, is subject to regulation of the said trade or business. The right being so guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution, the same cannot be taken away by black-listing the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law. At the moment, learned counsel has not been able to show me any Rule or Regulation in accordance with which the petitioner has been black-listed. Needless to state that the minimum requirement is a notice clearly stating the allegations which may under the applicable law or Rule be a ground for black-listing and then a fair opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, the order has been passed without any such proceedings and does not have the backing of any law or Rule. The impugned order dated 21-6-2006 (Annexure "I") of the respondent No,1 accordingly is declared to be void and without lawful authority and is set aside. So far as the said prayer for payment of price is concerned, I have already observed above that any of the parties can file a properly constituted suit for determination of any breach of contract and the entitlement of either of the parties to recover amounts due. No orders as to costs.