JUDGMENT R. S. Dhavan, J. - In the district of. Azamgarh there is a Voluntary Organisation which calls itself the District Council of Child Welfare (Zila Balya Kalyan Samiti), hereinafter it is referred to as the Samiti. Its Secretary is one P. N. Tripathi. The two of them, the Samiti and P. N. Tripathi, have filed the present writ petition as petitioners 1 and 2 seeking redress in effect that this organisation ought not to be black listed by the respondents as a consequence of which its grant-in-aid has been cut off. The respondents are, (1) Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, through its Director - Bat Vikas, (2) State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Secretary, Harijan and Social Welfare Department, Lucknow and (3) Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 2. The Samiti says its activities are confined to the welfare and development of the children and that it was established in the year 1974, to implement the schemes and programmes of the Indian Council for Child Welfare, New Delhi, which organisation has a state affiliation, as such there is a body known as U.P. Council for Child Welfare and that this State Council is empowered to establish, affiliate or recognise a District Council. The petitioner Samiti is one such District Council. Its Office bearers are amongst others, the District Magistrate, Azarngarh as the President, the District Development Officer, as the Vice President and Treasurer, the Chief Medical Officer is otherwise the President and the District Harijan Social and Welfare Officer as General . Secretary. All these persons are office bearers ex-officio. The petitioner 2 is its Secretary. 3. The Samiti, amongst others, had two activities, namely "Balwadi" programme and 'Creches' for the children in the district of Azamgarh and these programmes were sustained by a grant-in-aid given by the U.P. Council for Child Welfare. In the year 1975, the Samiti was assigned the task of organising a Bat Sevika Training Institute and training Anganwari workers under the 'Integrated Child Development Scheme'. The petitioner Samiti says that these schemes train social workers in matters of supplementary nutrition feeding, immunization, health care including referral services. Nutrition, education of mothers, pre-school education and recreation, family planning and provision of safe drinking water for the pre-school children. 4. The petitioner Samiti says that these schemes train social workers in matters of supplementary nutrition feeding, immunization, health care including referral services. Nutrition, education of mothers, pre-school education and recreation, family planning and provision of safe drinking water for the pre-school children. 4. The petitioner Samiti mentions that during 1975-76 it trained two batches of fifty Anganwari workers from Child Development Project (Bat Vikas Pariyojna),Shankergarh, District Allahabad and the training expenses were received from the U.P. Council for Child Welfare. The training was done at the establishment of the petitioner Samiti. 5. In 1979, the petitioner Samiti contends, the State Government took up these training programmes itself by not assigning them to Voluntary Organisations including the petitioner Samiti. But, again during the year 1979 by a communication of June 5 in that year the State Government through the Secretary, Harijan and Social Welfare Department, Lucknow, asked the petitioner Samiti to continue the training programme for Anganwari workers. The petitioner Samiti contends that in pursuance of this, three batches of Anganwari workers were assigned to the Samiti for being trained, each batch had 50 social workers. These batches of social workers had come from Bal Vikas Pariyojna Mohammadabad Gohna, District Azamgarh, Bhinga District Bahraich and Haldaur District Bijnor. This training the petitioner Samiti imparted and concluded on 16th Mar., 1981. The petitioner Samiti did receive a part of grant as consideration for training these social workers, but it was only in respect of the batch which came from Mohammadabad Gohna, district Azamgarh. The grant for training the other two batches was not received. The petitioner Samiti contends that it has incurred about rupees one lac as training expenses which have yet to be disbursed by the State of Uttar Pradesh or the Central Government. The petitioner Samiti has also set out a grievance in the petition that one of the reasons why it was not assigned further training programme, and thus curtailing its activities was that it was black listed, and that such an action had been taken without intimation to the petitioner Samiti and behind its back. The petitioner Samiti has given reasons why it has not received reimbursements against the training expenses incurred and the unilateral action of black listing it, of which it was not informed. 6. The petitioner Samiti has given reasons why it has not received reimbursements against the training expenses incurred and the unilateral action of black listing it, of which it was not informed. 6. Some of the allegations made by the petitioner Samiti are against persons named in the petition, but not made parties as respondents. In effect, the petitioner Samiti alleges that the reasons for its suffering by not receiving reimbursement and for being black listed, is mala fide. In so far as the personal mala fides are concerned, this Court at the time of hearing indicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 12 Dec., 1983 a Bench of this Court had passed an order to the effect that the petitioner should implead the person against whom mala fide was alleged, as a party respondent. The petitioner Samiti did not comply with this order. Thus, this Court, in the circumstance, cannot take judicial notice of personal allegations made against a person named in the petition, but not made a party respondent. The writ petition will thus be examined in the absence of those allegations. 7. The Court has examined the averments made in the writ petition, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, through an Under Secretary and also the rejoinder affidavit. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India an explanation has been offered why the petitioner Samiti was virtually struck off from Government records and not assigned any future training programmes the like of which were assigned to the petitioner Samiti before. The counter- affidavit . mentions that the Vigilance Commission acted at the instance of a communication from a Member of Parliament alleging that certain irregularities existed amongst Welfare organisations including the Samiti run by the petitioner 2, P. N. Tripathi, aforesaid. The complaint at the behest of a Member of Parliament was referred to the State Government for enquiry. The counter affidavit states on record that the State Government wrote to the Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare, New Delhi, confirming that the allegations against the petitioner Samiti had been found to be correct. The complaint at the behest of a Member of Parliament was referred to the State Government for enquiry. The counter affidavit states on record that the State Government wrote to the Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare, New Delhi, confirming that the allegations against the petitioner Samiti had been found to be correct. The State Government also advised the Secretary, Harijan Social and Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh, that it must take appropriate steps so that the recognition granted to the petitioner Samiti as a Social Welfare Organisation by the Government of India is cancelled. This communication by the State Government to the Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare and the Secretary, Harijan Social and Welfare Department, Lucknow, are by a letter of Mar. 3, 1982, appended as Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit. The Government of India responded on the recommendations made to it by the State Government and by its letter dated Mar. 29, 1982 wrote to the Secretary, Harijan Social and Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh and the Joint Secretary, Indian Council of Child Welfare, New Delhi that it has received complaints against the petitioner Samiti, thus, it had decided to 'black list' this organisation. This communication is Annexure 'C' to the counter-affidavit. The Government of India recommended to the State Government that the petitioner Samiti ought not to be recognised in future and it ought to be black listed. This letter, which is a communication of Government of India, is endorsed to the Under Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Lucknow, with a request that Hon'ble Member of Parliament ought to be intimated of such an action taken by the State Government. 9. The fact that the petitioner Samiti had been black listed, is thus not in issue and is accepted in the counter-affidavit. What is also not in issue is the fact that the petitioner Samiti had not been intimated at any stage that there is a proposal to or that it is being black listed. The petitioner Samiti only felt the resultant action. Its reimbursements were denied without any reason and it was denied the status which it had in the past as a social and welfare organisation and recognised by the State Government and the Government of India. The action to black list the petitioner Samiti was unilateral The record itself bears this out without an issue. Its reimbursements were denied without any reason and it was denied the status which it had in the past as a social and welfare organisation and recognised by the State Government and the Government of India. The action to black list the petitioner Samiti was unilateral The record itself bears this out without an issue. The counter-affidavit justifies this action by asserting that "no principle of natural justice is violated by the action of the Ministry. The petitioner has no legal right to conduct the training of Anganwari workers." 10. Black listing a person, more so by the State, causes sufference on a person who receives such a stigma. This sufference can be classified illegal if an action of black listing has been taken unilaterlly and without giving an opportunity to the person who is to suffer, to explain why such a penal action ought not to be taken. This proposition of law has been settled by the Supreme Court. AIR 1975 SC 266 , Erusian Equipment and Chemicalas Ltd. v. State of West Bengal. 11. The petitioner Samiti has thus suffered as it received a label of being black listed on state records. This is amply borne out from two annexures which have been appended to the counter-affidavit, namely, communication No. 286-87/HA.SA.KA./BA. KA./82 dated Mar. 3, 1982 from the State Government, Department of Harijan Social and Welfare Department, Lucknow and of the Ministry of Social Welfare, New Delhi No. 13-1-81-TR dated 29th Mar., 1982. These are Annexures B' and 'C' to the counter-affidavit. The State Government communication seeks action against the petitioner Samiti and the Government of India accepts the advise of the State Government in black listing it. No opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner Samiti to explain the irregularities, which may have been committed or the allegations and complaints made against it. The enquiry was undertaken between the State Government and the Government of 'India, ignoring the Samiti. The denial of an opportunity to the petitioner Samiti to explain the allegations made against it and the action taken is a violation of the principles of natural justice, in reference to the context. The resultant action as precipitated on the state record to black list the Samiti or withhold its reimbursements on this account is hereby declared to be illegal by this Court. 12. The resultant action as precipitated on the state record to black list the Samiti or withhold its reimbursements on this account is hereby declared to be illegal by this Court. 12. Of the three orders or documents which the Samiti desires to be quashed, one is appended to the counter-affidavit to explain the defence. Annexure 10' to the writ petition, the letter from the Government of India No. 13-1/81/T.R. dated 29th Mar., 1982, is otherwise appended as Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit. Annexure 11' to the writ petition, is dated 3rd Apr., 1982, a letter from the Government of India bearing No. 13-1-81-T.R. The text is the same as Annexure 10, above or Annexure B to the counter-affidavit. The third communication against which the petitioner Samiti seeks relief is Annexure 12. This is a letter of 18th Oct., 1983 written by the State Government/U.P. Council (Uttar Pradesh Bal Kalyan Samiti, Lucknow) to the petitioner 2, P. N. Tripathi, Secretary of the petitioner Samiti. It mentions that as the Government of India, Ministry of Social Welfare has taken a decision that the petitioner Samiti cannot be utilised in future for implementation of any social welfare programmes of the Ministry and of the State Government, thus it may have the matter cleared from the Ministry of Social Welfare, if it desires to continue its activities. In reference to this, this Court feels that this is not a communication which can be quashed or at least it is not in the interest of the petitioner that this communication ought to be declared as a nullity. On the other hand the U.P. Council for Child Welfare acknowledges that if the petitioner Samiti has to participate in the social welfare programmes, then it must have the matters cleared from the two Governments, that is the Central and State. Thus, this Court is of the view that the Samiti having been blacklisted unilaterally between the Government of India and the State Government, it will now be given an opportunity of being apprised why it has been black listed and thereafter be heard in defence of the allegations made against it. Further, the Samiti will also be entitled to make a representation to the State Government to pursue the reimbursement of expenses which it did not receive despite the fact that its organisation had been utilised by the State for training social workers. Further, the Samiti will also be entitled to make a representation to the State Government to pursue the reimbursement of expenses which it did not receive despite the fact that its organisation had been utilised by the State for training social workers. There is no denial in the counter-affidavit on this aspect. In 'fact, in reference to payment of the grant, in Annexure A to the counter-affidavit of the Government of India, the Ministry of Social Welfare, in its communication No. 4-34/80- TR of June 4, 1980 intimates the Deputy Secretary, Harijan Social and Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh that "the State Government can get reimbursement of the amount of grant from the UNICEF direct under intimation to this Ministry". This fact is also not in issue. Further, in reference to the payment to be received by the Samiti, the -Government of India, in its counter-affidavit in para 16 says; ".......... in respect of the courses completed prior to this Ministry's order of 29th Mar., 1982, grants were to be released by the State Government in respect of courses for state sector projects. On requests received from the petitioner Samiti directly or through the District Council of Child Welfare, this Ministry asked the State Government to take appropriate action". 13. That the reimbursements have yet to be made to the petitioner has also not been made an issue by the respondents; the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of all the three. The Government of India, Ministry of Social Welfare, merely stresses, in effect, that it is the responsibility of the State Government. The past projects in question were carried out by the petitioner Samiti and it has yet to receive payments. The payments were thus withheld without cause. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court has held AIR 1983 SC 848 , Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Ms. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. that an appropriate writ can be issued directing the State to act on.its assurance and thereby preventing harm and injury from such an unreasonable approach. Thus the Samiti will be entitled to receive the reimbursements in question from the State Government. Upon scrutiny, these reimbursement will be paid to the petitioner Samiti with interest at the rate of ten per cent from the date it became due. 14. Apart from the reliefs granted above, the other reliefs sought by the petitioner Samiti may not be appropriate to grant. Upon scrutiny, these reimbursement will be paid to the petitioner Samiti with interest at the rate of ten per cent from the date it became due. 14. Apart from the reliefs granted above, the other reliefs sought by the petitioner Samiti may not be appropriate to grant. The petitioner Samiti has prayed that the two governments be directed that the batches of social workers ought to be deputed to the petitioner Samiti for training in future. The Court feels that this direction as sought by the petitioner Samiti may impair and interfere with any future assessment which the State or the Government of India may have to make on the petitioner Samiti. This Court would not like to interfere in such a discretion for all times to come. It is repeated that the assessment of the respondents to blacklist the Samiti, is illegal. 15. In view of the reasons given above this Court thus, directs : (a) the decision of the respondents to black list the Samiti is declared illegal. The communications No. 13-a-1/81-TR dated 29th Mar., 1982, from Government of India, Ministry of Social Welfare, New Delhi to the Secretary, Harijan and Social Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow, Annexure 10 to the writ petition and No. 13-I/81/TR dated Apr. 3, 1982 from Government of India, Ministry of Social Welfare, New Delhi to the Secretary, Harijan and Social Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Annexure 11 to the writ petition, are quashed. (b) a direction is hereby given to the State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent 2, that within two months of a certified copy of this' judgment being produced, it will upon verification and scrutiny pay the outstanding dues to the Samiti with interest at the rate of ten per cent from the date when the payments fell due. 16. The writ petition is, thus, allowed with costs.