Judgment 1. After grant of a contract in favour of the writ petitioner, the same was cancelled by an order, which was annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, on the ground that the writ petitioner has been blacklisted for having committed acts in relation to a past transaction inter se the parties. In the writ petition it was stated that the petitioner is not aware of his blacklisting. 2. On the basis of the counter affidavit, as was originally filed, the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had no knowledge of blacklisting. Having regard to the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, the learned Judge also found that the allegations on the basis whereof the petitioner was blacklisted were not against the petitioner. The learned Judge also felt on the basis of the pleadings in the original counter affidavit that in relation to an incident of 2000-2001, blacklisting proceeding could not be initiated in 2006. 3. Subsequent to the judgment being rendered, which has been challenged in the present appeal, a Miscellaneous Application was filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition in order to bring to the notice of the Court that a show cause was issued against the petitioner on 8-5-2002 levelling certain allegations against the petitioner and the same was answered by the petitioner on 14-8-2002. It was contended in the said Miscellaneous Application that the allegations made in he writ petition to the effect the petitioner had no knowledge of the black listing proceeding is untrue. 4. In this appeal, the appellants seek to highlight the said fact principally. We, accordingly, granted the learned Counsel for the appellants to produce before us the charge-sheet, the reply thereto and also the order of adjudication. The copy of the reply to the charge-sheet is already on record of the Miscellaneous Application. A copy of the charge-sheet has been produced before us, which is kept with the record. It was submitted that there is no order of adjudication, for adjudication has not yet been made. In Annexure-3 to the writ petition, there is a categoric statement of finding of mishandling resulting in blacklisting. This assertion is, therefore, not just for the finding has not yet been reached. 5. It was submitted that there is no order of adjudication, for adjudication has not yet been made. In Annexure-3 to the writ petition, there is a categoric statement of finding of mishandling resulting in blacklisting. This assertion is, therefore, not just for the finding has not yet been reached. 5. In such view of the matter the statement made in the writ petition that the petitioner is not aware of blacklisting proceeding should be noted as an assertion that the petitioner is not aware of his being blacklisted. 6. In law, when a show cause is issued, the contents thereof are mere allegations. Those allegations would become facts upon the same being accepted as such by an adjudication. On the basis of a mere allegation, no ones right can be interfered with. In those circumstances, by keeping pending the proposal to blacklist the petitioner on the basis of mere allegation, a contract awarded in his favour could not be cancelled. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no scope of Interference with the Judgment and order under appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.