Judgement The brief facts of the case is that the supply orders were placed with the petitioner company, i.e. M/s. D. C. Bhura and Sons of Silchar and another company based at Calcutta for supply of 1,000 Metric tones of coal at the rate of Rs. 899/- per metric ton. In the said supply order, certain terms and conditions were incorporated for supply of coal. Further, it was specifically mentioned that the calorific value of coal to be supplied should be 6,100 in K. Cal./ Kg. As per the said supply order coal was brought to coal yard of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. in trucks and were unloaded. Thereafter, the samples were taken and sent to the Laboratory. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner company that the samples were taken and sent to the laboratory for analysis and report was prepared by the Chemist and senior Chemist of Hindustan Paper Corporation showing the calorific value and ash content of coal supplied by the suppliers. From the report it was confirmed that the coal supplied by the supplier was as per specification mentioned in the supply orders. Thereafter, there was a joint surprise check conducted by the C.B.I. with the Hindustan Paper Corporation Officials on 28-9-91 and samples were taken from the aforesaid quantity of coal unloaded by the supplier and the same were sent to the Director, National Test House, Calcutta for carrying out necessary test and find out the actual calorific value of the said samples. Thereafter, the Director, National Test House sent a report determining the calorific value of the coal samples taken from the unloaded trucks. In the said report the calorific value of coal found by the National Test House was below the prescribed for acceptance of 6,000 K. Cal/Kg. As such, the coal supplied by the suppliers were found to be sub-standard and did not qualify the minimum requirement of 6,100 K. Cal./Kg. as specified in the terms and conditions of the supply orders. The company further found that its own officials submitted a wrong chemical analysis report in respect of the quality of the coal supplied by the suppliers which caused loss to the Corporation and thereafter Annexure V was issued. That is dated 15-6-94/17-6-94 which reads as follows: "With reference to above due to some unavoidable circumstances you are advised to stop supply of Meghalaya Coal with immediate effect. That is dated 15-6-94/17-6-94 which reads as follows: "With reference to above due to some unavoidable circumstances you are advised to stop supply of Meghalaya Coal with immediate effect. " 2. The legality and validity of this order is challenged in this writ application. 3. The admitted position is that the terms and conditions has expired on 31-12-94 but Shri Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that this order puts the petitioner in the category of black listing as such he requires that some specific direction may be given, regarding the black listing, the law has been settled by a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1277 (M/s Southern Painters v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.) wherein the Supreme Court after considering the earlier decisions of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 266 : AIR 1978 SC 930 and AIR 1989 SC 620 laid down the law in paragraphs 8 and 9 as follows: Para 8 : Again, in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229 at 230 : AIR 1989 SC 620 (Para 4), this Court observed : "Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of black listing the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. In so far as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order." Para 9 : "The deletion of the appellants name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were some vigilance report against it, could only be done consistent with and after the compliance of the principles of natural justice. That not having been done, it requires to be held that withholding of the tender form from the appellant was not justified. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition." 4. This being the position, it is made clear that the firm of the petitioner shall not be deemed to be black listed by the Corporation without complying with the required provision of law. Shri Phukan, learned Advocate for the respondents submits that as a matter of fact, the Corporation has never black listed the petitioner firm. 5. Be that as it may, in order to remove the doubt of the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner firm shall not be deemed to be black listed by the Corporation without following due process of law. 6. With the above observation, this writ application stands disposed of. Order accordingly.