The petitioner is a registered/listed Contractor of Pakistan Railways. He is aggrieved of order dated 22-4-2002, whereby he has been blacklisted with immediate effect.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said action has been taken by the respondents without any lawful authority inasmuch as no show-cause notice has been given to the petitioner to explain his position before taking the drastic action. He relies on the case of Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer (P.W.D), Emakulam and others AIR 1978 SC 930, Dawood Corporation (Private) Limited and another v. The Director-General, Department of Supplies, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Industries, Karachi and 2 others 1988 CLC 788 and Tristar Shipping Lines Limited v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock and 2 others 1997 CLC 1475. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the petitioner had been involved in embezzlement of the State money at a large scale in connivance with the officials of the Railway Department and that he is fully aware as to why he has been blacklisted. She relies upon the case of Government of Sindh and others v. Mst.
Najma 2001 SCM R 8 and Muhammad Asim Kurd v. Assistant Commissioner-cum-- Returning Officer and another 1996 CLC 1772.
3. I have examined the file of this writ petition, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted position that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no proceedings to his knowledge were conducted before addressing letter Annexure A declaring him to be black--listed to the entire Railway Organization as also to the Central Board of Revenue. The State Bank of Pakistan, some other Banks and the Chief Secretaries of all the Provinces as also of Azad State of J&K.
4. Now in the said case of Joseph the Supreme Court of India observed with reference to earlier judgment in the case of Eursian Equipment AIR 1975 SC 266 observed that 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 a objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fairplay require that the person concerned should be given at opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. It may be noted that in the said case a notice was issued to the Contractor with reference to a contract in progress as to why it should not be completed at his risk and costs and the Executive Engineer proceeded to inform the Contractor that the contract is to be completed at his risk and cost and he is to be debarred from taking further contract in the Division.
Their Lordships held that this notice cannot at all be construed to be a show-cause notice against the blacklisting. I may further note here that the said principles laid down in the said two judgments have been followed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Karachi in the said case of Dawood Corporation and by this Court in the said case of Tristar Shipping Lines Limited.
5. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in the said judgment 2001 SCM R 8 being relied upon by her the learned High Court at Karachi had proceeded to impose cost of Rs.5,000 on a District Magistrate and a Superintendent of Police personally on account of illegally detaining a candidate in election. It was pleaded before the Honourable Supreme Court that the costs have been imposted without issuing the show-cause notice. The argument was repelled with the observation that since the detention orders were judicially examined by the learned High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution where the said officers were duly represented, there was no need for issuing a show-cause notice separately. This of course is not the case here. I have already stated above that admittedly the petitioner was blacklisted C without affording him any opportunity to show cause. In the same corollary, I may note here that the said case of Muhammad Asim Kurd pertains to an election dispute arising out of the rejection of the nomination papers of a person on the ground of his involvement in heinous crimes were rejected by the Returning Officer and the rejection was upheld by the Election Tribunal. It was in the said context that the learned High Court of Baluchistan made the observation that exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary. Nothing, therefore, turns in favour of the respondents on the basis of the said judgment.
6. This writ petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned blacklisting order inasmuch as it concerns Rahim Khan, petitioner at Serial No.9 in Annexure A to the said blacklisting order is declared to be without lawful authority and is set aside. I However, the respondents shall be at liberty to commence proceedings by issuing a show---cause notice to the petitioner to enable him to represent his case before the competent authority and thereafter the matter be, decided.
No orders as to costs.