JUDGMENT R. H. Zaidi, J. - In both these petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, parties are also same. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 363 (MB)/1993, petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15-12-1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner, which was an approved contractor grade-A, was black-listed, and the amount of contract outstanding against the respondents was directed to be forfeited and adjusted in the alleged amount of excess payment of Rs. 6,56,773.09. Prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay forthwith and to release security of the petitioner was also made. 3. In Writ Petition No. 745 (MB)/1993, order of the same date, i.e., 15-12-1993 has been challenged, whereby registration of the petitioner as approved contractor 'A' grade was cancelled and the petitioner was black-listed. 4. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the above noted petitions in brief, are that the petitioner was registered 'A' grade contractor, and was authorised to take contract for the work of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad. The petitioner was granted a contract to construct link road/internal roads of Zafarganj Mandi Samiti, Sultanpur vide agreement No. 246/D.D.C./F.D., dated 1-8-1988. The agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Deputy Director (Construction) Mandi Parishad, Faizabad. Petitioner submitted three bills which were passed after full verification, but the payment of fourth and the last bill, which was submitted after completion of the work, was not made. According to the petitioner, the work entrusted to it was completed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract and as per specification. Final measurements of the work done by the petitioner, were made on 31-5-1990 and the transfer of roads was effected in accordance with the contract in favour of Mandi Samiti. According to the petitioner, the work entrusted to it was completed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract and as per specification. Final measurements of the work done by the petitioner, were made on 31-5-1990 and the transfer of roads was effected in accordance with the contract in favour of Mandi Samiti. It is stated that thereafter, one Shri Ram Sewak, M.L.A. is alleged to have made a complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which, enquiry was conducted under the orders of Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, by Shri A. K. Kapoor, Deputy Director (Quality Control), who submitted report on 25-3-1991 in favour of the petitioner; but the payment of the last bill submitted by the petitioner was not made and all of a sudden respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order and order for recovery of Rs. 6,56,773.09 against the petitioner, without affording opportunity of hearing to it and in violation of principles of natural justice, hence the abovenoted petitions. 5. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavits have been filed supporting the validity of the impugned orders. It has been stated that it was on account of irregularities committed by the petitioner that the excess payment of money, was made which was liable to be recovered. It has also been asserted that the report submitted by Shri A. K. Kapoor was not accepted and thereafter the enquiry was got conducted by three officers, who submitted report against the petitioner and on the basis of which impugned orders were passed. However, the copy of said report has not been filed along with the counter-affidavit. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the impugned orders cancelling the registration of the petitioner as contractor 'A' grade with Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and blacklisting it, were passed without affording opportunity of hearing to it and in violation of principles of natural justice, as well as in violation of provisions of the rules relating to registration of Contractor of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Faizabad. Therefore, the impugned orders were non est and were liable to be quashed. It was further submitted that the petitioner has completed construction of roads, in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, the impugned orders were non est and were liable to be quashed. It was further submitted that the petitioner has completed construction of roads, in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to receive amount of contract from contesting respondents. 8. We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also carefully perused the record of the case. 9. In para 14 of Writ Petition No. 363 (MB)/1993 and in para 13 of Writ Petition No. 745 (MB)/1993, it has specifically been stated that impugned orders were passed by respondent No. 2 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. In the counter-affidavit, aforesaid assertion has not been controverted specifically by the respondents. No material has been placed on the record by contesting respondents showing that the impugned orders were passed after following the procedure prescribed for the same and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule 15 of the Rules, relating to the registration of Contractor of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Faizabad provides as under : Rule 15 - The authority competent to enlist a contractor of any higher authority having jurisdiction may order removal of contractor's name from the Register of enlisted contractors for the reason to be mentioned in the order and communicated to the contractor before such order is passed the contractors shall be served with show cause notice given reasons for proposed removal and giving reasonable opportunity to explain amongst other the reason may be : (i) Unsatisfactory execution after tender is accepted (ii) Failure to commence work when tender is accepted and contracts agreement is executed and order to commence work has been issued. (iii) Failure to maintain required solvency, technical staff, machinery tools and plants. (iv) Failure to maintain the required amount of general security. (v) Conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude. (vi) Any other act which in the judgment of the authority competent to order the removal of the name from the list is undesirable or amounts to misconduct. (2) The officer ordering the removal will inform all authorities below him who will make a note to this effect against the name of the contractor in their register." 11. (vi) Any other act which in the judgment of the authority competent to order the removal of the name from the list is undesirable or amounts to misconduct. (2) The officer ordering the removal will inform all authorities below him who will make a note to this effect against the name of the contractor in their register." 11. From a reading of the aforesaid rule, it is evident that the competent authority to enlist contractor or any higher authority having jurisdiction, may order removal of contractor's names from the register of enlisted contractors, but before such order is passed, the competent authority is required to serve show cause notice upon the contractor concerned, giving reasons for proposed removal and giving reasonable opportunity to explain his case regarding the reasons mentioned therein. 12. In the present case before passing the impugned orders, no show cause notice as required under Rule 15 referred to above, was issued to, or served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 2. The impugned orders were, thus passed in violation of the said rule. It is well settled law that the order passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is non est and legally no order affecting civil rights of any person can be passed without affording him opportunity of hearing or to explain his case. By means of the impugned orders, not only the registration of the petitioner as approved contractor 'A' grade has been cancelled, but the amount of contract outstanding against the respondent, has been directed to be forfeited. Civil rights of the petitioner have thus been adversely affected by the said orders. Therefore, the said orders could not be passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 13. In M/s Erusion Equipment and Chemical v. State of Bengal ( AIR 1975 SC 266 ). Apex Court was pleased to rule as under : "The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination. The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. But for the order of blacklisting the petitioner would have been entitled to participate in the purchase of cinchoha. Similarly the respondent in the appeal would also have been entitled but for the order of blacklisting to tender competitive rates. 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 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 the blacklist." 14. Again matter came up for consideration before Apex Court in Josheph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (P.W.D.), Ernakulam and others ( AIR 1978 SC 930 ), in which the view taken by the Full Bench of Kerala High Court, to the contrary in Thomas v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1969 Ker 81 (FB)), was overruled and the decision in Erusion Equipment (supra) was relied upon and followed. It was held that the 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, and that fundamentals of fair play require that person concerned should be given opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. Same view was taken by Supreme Court in M/s Southern Painters v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another ( AIR 1994 SC 1277 ). 15. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Monika Plastic Pipes (P.) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar v. Directors of Industries, U.P., Kanpur and another (1998 (16) LCD 388), relying upon the decision in Erusion Equipment and Chemicals (supra) and Southern Painters (supra), was pleased to rule that the order blacklisting involves civil consequences and such order cannot be passed without adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person, who is to be blacklisted. 16. 16. In view of the aforesaid decisions and Rule 15 of the Rules referred to above, it was obligatory upon the respondents to afford opportunity of hearing or to explain its case to the petitioner by issuing a show-cause notice before passing the impugned orders. No such opportunity having been afforded, impugned orders are non est and unenforceable in law and they are liable to be quashed. 17. It may also be noted that the report submitted by Shri A. K. Kapoor, Deputy Director (Quality Control) of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad was in favour of the petitioner, and on the basis of said report, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any illegality or irregularity in the work entrusted to it by the respondents. The alleged subsequent report has not been placed on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount in question was liable to be recovered from the petitioner. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, these petitions succeed, and are allowed with costs. Order dated 15-12-1992 passed by respondent No. 1, contained in Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition No. 363(MB)/1993, and order dated 15-12-1993 passed by respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure-I to Writ Petition No. 745(MB)/1993, are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to make payment of amount, if any outstanding against them, to the petitioner.