JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.: - Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a proprietor of Sonu Electrical and an "A" Class Electrical Contractor, having Licence No. 9324. Tender was floated by Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited for the purpose of electrical works to be carried out under I.R.D.P. at Amravati. It is submitted that vide letter dated 2-1-2003 of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati petitioner was informed regarding the awarding of contract to him and was asked to report to the office within seven days from the receipt of this letter with various samples of sodium and mercury fittings. Shri Sambre, learned Counsel states that the petitioner being a successful bidder, work order dated 30-1-2002 came to be issued in his favour for one year, which was expired on 28-2-2003. Shri Sambre, learned Counsel contended that Municipal Council, Amravati vide show cause notice dated 9-5-2003, whereby the petitioner was informed that he failed to honour and complete the work orders granted to him and was called upon to show cause, as to why, his security deposit should not be forfeited and he be not debarred for three years, within seven days from the date of the letter/notice. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, no doubt, submitted his reply to the said show cause notice dated 3-6-2003, however, contended that the Corporation before passing the impugned order dated 3-10-2003, did not give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. It is contended that by the impugned order the security deposit of the petitioner is forfeited and the petitioner was debarred from undertaking work within the jurisdiction of Amravati Corporation, for a period of three years. The learned Counsel contended that this action of the respondent virtually prohibits the petitioner from dealing with the Corporation for a period of three years, which results in civil consequences as well as it would amount to stigma, because of the fact of blacklisting the petitioner without giving him opportunity of being heard. It is, therefore, prayed that impugned order dated 3-10-2003 is violative of principles of natural justice and same should be quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, prayed that impugned order dated 3-10-2003 is violative of principles of natural justice and same should be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others)1, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 620. 3. Shri M.K. Pathan, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that the Corporation issued show cause notice dated 9-5-2003 to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause, as to why, his security deposit should not be seized and he should not be debarred for three years, in view of the facts mentioned in the show cause notice and, therefore, this is not the case where the opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the Corporation. It is contended that the petitioner, after receipt of the above referred show cause notice, submitted his detailed reply, which was considered by the Corporation and it is after due consideration the decision is taken by the Corporation, that the reasons given in the reply filed by the petitioner are inadequate and, therefore, finally decided to forfeit the security deposit and debarred the petitioner accordingly. The learned Counsel for the respondent states that the action of the respondent, in the circumstances, is not violative of principles of natural justice and, therefore, impugned order is sustainable in law. 4. We have given our anxious thought to the various contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the judgment of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove. In the instant case, it is, no doubt, true that the respondent Corporation has issued show cause notice to the petitioner, whereby he was called upon to give his explanation in respect of the facts mentioned in the notice. It is also true that the petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice to the Corporation. The question is whether this would amount to compliance of the principles of natural justice by the Corporation, particularly when the order results in civil consequences. In the instant case, in our considered view, mere show cause notice issued by the Corporation, would not be sufficient to hold that the requirements of principles of natural justice are complied with by the Corporation. In the instant case, in our considered view, mere show cause notice issued by the Corporation, would not be sufficient to hold that the requirements of principles of natural justice are complied with by the Corporation. On the other hand, the consequences of the impugned order are not only civil in nature but also have a positive bearing in respect of the business of the petitioner and, therefore, in such situation, the opportunity of being heard ought to have given to the petitioner by the Corporation before passing the impugned order dated 3-10-2003. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur (supra) in para 4 observed thus : "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 representation against the order. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the order in so far as it directs blacklisting of the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law." 6. The above referred observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur (supra), convey that whenever the civil consequence ensued from such order, should be passed only after giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the person concerned, failing which such order would be violative of principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained in law. It is, no doubt, true that in the Raghunath Thakares case (supra), even the show cause notice was not given, however, that by itself does not change the bearing of the situation, so far as the case in hand is concerned. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, impugned order dated 3-10-2003 passed by the respondent Corporation is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the issue, on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, impugned order dated 3-10-2003 passed by the respondent Corporation is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the issue, on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to file an additional reply, if any. The respondent is directed to pass the order in this regard, according to law, after giving appropriate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in this regard. 8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Matter remitted back. -----