Judgment :- The petitioner prays for issue of a direction to the second respondent-Kerala Agricultural University, Manoothy, Trichur-to quash Ext. P1 circular by which the petitioner-firm was blacklisted. All the heads of department under the University were also requested not to enter into any contract or effect any purchase from the petitioner-firm. 2. The petitioner is a leading manufacturer in Cattle and Poultry feeds. It entered into an agreement with the second respondent for the supply of cattle and poultry feeds. In the course of transaction, the relationship between them became strained, for some reason or other. Some quantity of the articles could not be supplied in time. In consequence thereof, the second respondent sustained a loss of Rs. 31,859/-. That amount was recovered from the petitioner, by way of compensation. Inspite of it, the second respondent without giving any opportunity of being heard blacklisted the petitioner by issuing a circular dated 16-10-1990 (Ext. P1). It is contended that the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner-firm is illegal inasmuch as the petitioner was neither served with any notice nor given any opportunity of being heard before passing Ext. P1 order. It was therefore issued in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is admitted in para. 3 that the loss was made good by the petitioner. But it is contended that the petitioner failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the contract during the year 1988-89 and their performance was found to be totally unsatisfactory. Ext. P1 order was issued in order to avoid unnecessary difficulty, loss, hardship and further complications in future. It is also contended that the Vice Chancellor is empowered under the Store Purchase Manual of the University to take such action as and when necessary in case of default by any supplier of goods to the University. The respondent is competent to pass Ext. P1 order in terms of para.95 of the Store Purchase Manual unilaterally. 4. It is no where stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard before passing Ext. P 1 order. The respondent is competent to pass Ext. P1 order in terms of para.95 of the Store Purchase Manual unilaterally. 4. It is no where stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard before passing Ext. P 1 order. The Supreme Court in Erusion Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal ((1975) 2 SCR 674) laid down the law relating to black listing as follows: "Black listing has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gain. A person who is on the. approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of black listing. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of. sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. Black listing tarnishes one's reputation and reputation is a part of person's character and personality. The fact that a disability is created by the order of black listing indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on black list." The University as a public authority is expected to act like the Government in matters of contracts of sale and purchase of materials. Thus it was the bounden duty of the second respondent to issue notice and give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before the issue of Ext. P1 circular. That having not been done, the same cannot be sustained in law. 5. Ext. P1 circular is therefore quashed. The competent authorities of the University will give an opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case and the authorities will hear the petitioner before taking a decision on the question whether its name should be put in the black list, or not. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.