' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.-- By this single judgment we propose to dispose of W.P. Nos.260/2004, 261/2004 and 338/2004, as all the three petitions involve similar facts and identical questions of law, which were heard together.
2. Messrs Al-Noor Construction Company are approved contractors of the Cantonment Board, Peshawar. The company was established by late Ismail Noor and registered with the Board as Contractor in the year 1992. 'Late Isma il Noor breathed his last on 10-1-1996, leaving behind Azhar Noor, son and present proprietor of M/s Al-Noor Construction Company and other legal heirs. The company remained in business with the Cantonment Board from 1992 till date. The petitioners have been executing over the years, on acceptance of their tenders invited through press and have successfully completed number of works with the Board and the various departments of the Armed Forces of Pakistan. The works - done/being done by the petitioners have been highly commended by all concerned including the Corps. Commander, 11-Corps, Peshawar, Chairman/Secretaries/Project Officers, Board of Governors. A number of certificates eulogizing petitioner's works, quality and standard and services have been issued. Apart from the Cantonment Board of Peshawar, petitioners are enlisted as Government Contractor in Category "A" with the C&W Department, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, as contractor for civil works at PESCO, Peshawar with Water and Power Development Authority and are also approved for pre-qualification for maintenance works on National Highways in N.-W.F.P. Region by the National Highway Authority.
The petitioners received a letter from the Cantonment Executive Officer, Peshawar (respondent No,3) addressed to the petitioner and two others informing them that they "are hereby blacklisted" and directed to "immediately stop the works being carried out" by them "without further loss of time". The said letter lists the following allegations against the petitioner:-- "(a) found involved in tempting Cantt. Board Staff to follow illegal methods of contracting, with a view to get personal benefits as revealed by the inquiry conducted by the Army Authorities;
(b) the Board 'noticed that both the firms are managed by one Mr. Asad Noor and are owned by dummy owners."
3. Mr. Sardar Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner-company contended with justification that the so-called decision of the Board has brought the entire business/construction activity of the petitioner to a grinding halt, besides bad name and public ridicule, resulting in continuing and enormous losses. The said decision/ resolution/letter, dated 20-2-2004 proclaims its own mala fides and offends the principles of natural justice, the same having been made by the Board without hearing the petitioner/its representative or issuing any show-cause notice. He also reiterated that the Board/respondents are not possessed of any authority to blacklist the petitioner who is legally enlisted contractor for the year 2003-2004. The two reasons given in the impugned order, namely, "tempeting Cantt. Board staff to follow illegal methods to contracting" and the allegation that "both the firms are managed by one Mr. Asad Noor and are owned by dummy owners" are wholly incorrect, misconceived, whimsical, biased and mala fide.
4. There is no justification whatsoever for the Board to resort to such a hard stand blacklisting the petitioner in arbitrary and capricious manner. It should be considered as a last measure and, therefore, it should be very sparingly used. The action has been taken by the Board without lawful authority in all, inasmuch as, no show-cause notice has been given to the petitioner to explain his position before taking the drastic action. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case before he was put on the blacklist.
5. It needs no reiteration that every person is entitled to a legal representation if he so chooses, unless it is expressly forbidden to him by a valid law. This right of representation is not only confined to meeting the case of the other side but to represent his own case. The prospective victim must have a prior adequate notice of the case, charge or allegations that he has to meet. He must have a reasonable opportunity to answer the case against him and put his own case. The decision must be made only on the allegations and the material of which the notice had been given. He must have an unbiased and a fair hearing. Where an act or order inflicted civil consequences on a person in respect of his reputation or property which was harmful to interest of that person, he was entitled to be heard before such action or order was taken or passed. Before taking such a decision the person likely to be affected adversely was entitled to a notice and hearing in the matter.
Principles of natural justice must be followed not merely as formality but as a well meaning and effective requirement of law.
' Aftab Shahban Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others 1998 SCM R 1863, and New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd., Karachi v. National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi PLD 1999 SC 1126.
6. In the case of Preetam Pipes Syndicate AIR 1986 Mad. 310, it was held:-- "4. Blacklisting has got a particular factual and legal potency. But for the blacklisting a person would have the right, privilege and advantage of entering into contractual relationship with the authorities. By blacklisting he is disabled from doing so. There is a curb on his freedom to enter into contractual relationship with the authorities. It has nothing to do with a particular contract over which a controversy may arise and which may lead to the determination of the contract and forfeiture of the monies deposited thereunder. Grievances arising therefrom will have to be vented through by different processes. It is not possible to mix up determination of the contract with the blacklisting. Blacklisting, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, does not relate to any particular contract and it involves civil consequences and it creates a barrier between the person blacklisted and the authorities in the matter of contractual transactions. The power to determine questions affecting the rights of citizens will certainly impose a limitation that the said determination should be exercised only in conformity with the principles of natural justice and fair play. Those principles do envisage that the person to be affected should be afforded an opportunity to represent his case before his rights are affected. There is no dispute that in the present case the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to make his say on the question of blacklisting and the matter stopped with the issuance of a show-cause notice and before the appellant could respond, the orders of blacklisting had come to be passed."
' Similar view was taken by Supreme Court of Pakistan in University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- ' ..Nevertheless, the general consensus of judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure the 'elementary and essential principles of fairness' as a matter of necessary implication, the person sought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of the allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his own case and 'to correct or coptrovert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice'. Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks tit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him. In other words, 'in order to act justly and to reach just ends by just means' the Courts insist that the person or authority should have adopted the above `elementary and essential principles' unless the same had been expressly excluded by the enactment empowering him to so act...... "
7. 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, dated 20-2-2004 declaring him to be blacklisted.
8. In the circumstances these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned blacklisting order is declared to be without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, illegal and of no legal effect, therefore, the same is hereby struck dowri. 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 order as to costs.