JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastav, J.- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the order dated 20.12.2010 is sued by respondent No.3 (Annexurer-15 to the writ petition) for blacklisting the petitioner's company. 3. The order speaks about a decision taken on a recommendation of a High Level Committee constituted by Vidhan Sabha. The recommendation was to blacklist the petitioner's company and to intimate about blacklisting to all the recognised establishments on a national and international level. Consequent on the aforesaid recommendation, the petitioner was blacklisted by a Notification No. 1755 (bha) dated 17.06.2003 under Rule 18 sub-rules 'kha, ga and Ja' of the Jharkhand Contractor Enlistment Rules, 2003. The petitioner was also debarred from working in his own name or any other name for the contracts for P.W.D. Department or any other Department of the State of Jharkhand. The order was to be implemented with immediate effect. 4. Facts of the case are that the Department of Art, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs proposed for construction of a Mega Sports Complex at Hotwar, Ranchi, to hold the National Games. The Public Works Department (in short 'P.W.D.') respondent No.2 was to carry out the construction work. Tender was floated for 'Consultancy Services and Construction, Supervision for Development of the Mega Sports Complex' at Hotwar. The petitioner along with the other bidders had made a " bid. The bid of the petitioner was approved, and, thereafter an agreement was entered into on 04.12.2000. According to the agreement, the work was to commence on 04.12.2004 and completed by 31.12.2006. The petitioner's company was required to provide consultancy service, total value of the work was fixed at Rs. 206 Crores initially and fees of the petitioner was fixed at the rate of approximately 5% of the total cost. In terms of the agreement, the project was to be executed in two phases :- (a) Planning and Designing of Drawings i.e. Bid Process Management; (b) Project Management and Supervision of the construction work. 5. According to the agreement. Administrative Building was to be constructed in an area of 25.000 sq. ft. and the Sports Complex was to be completed by. December 2006. Pursuant to the aforesaid allocation of work, the petitioner submitted the Inspection-cum-Drawing report within time. i.e. by 20.01.2005. 5. According to the agreement. Administrative Building was to be constructed in an area of 25.000 sq. ft. and the Sports Complex was to be completed by. December 2006. Pursuant to the aforesaid allocation of work, the petitioner submitted the Inspection-cum-Drawing report within time. i.e. by 20.01.2005. After submission of the initial draft report, the respondent made certain changes which was carried out by the petitioner and the report was approved in the first week of February. 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to proceed with the desired changes. The petitioner made a request for revision of time frame allocated for submission of the draft report and extend it to July 2005, since a number, of changes were brought about in the Master Plan. This request was made by a letter' dated 07.05.2005. The draft report was submitted, but once again further changes were incorporated and the draft was submitted on 04.08.2005. The respondents gradually increased the scope of work decided in the beginning. The Administrative Block which 'was to be constructed in an area of 25.000 sq. ft. was changed and the area was escalated to 1.25.000 sq. ft., besides a number of additions such as, shopping complex, construction of amphitheater, jogging track, had an inevitable consequence of escalation in the cost of the project and it expanded from Rs. 206 Crares to Hs. 300' Crores. However, the Master: Plan. Architectural Designing. Detailed Engineering Design and Bid Process Management was successfully completed by 03.04.2006. The Executive Engineer. Special Works Department issued a Certificate, certifying the satisfactory completion. This Certificate is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 6. Submission on be halt of the petitioner is that on account of major changes the original schedule was considerably delayed and 18 months period for completion of the work, initially agreed upon as 30.06.2006, was changed and the completion of work was extended by .another date. i.e. 30.09.2007. The petitioner further contends that a number of letters were written to the respondents to expedite the work, as the construction was being actually carried out by the contractor appointed by the respondents. The petitioner submits that he had no say regarding progress in the, construction work. 7. i.e. 30.09.2007. The petitioner further contends that a number of letters were written to the respondents to expedite the work, as the construction was being actually carried out by the contractor appointed by the respondents. The petitioner submits that he had no say regarding progress in the, construction work. 7. A team consisting of number of dignitaries of the Jharkhand Government visited Australia and Singapore to inspect various stadiums and other sports facilities available in other countries and thereafter made a number of changes' whereby the original scope and design of work was considerably enlarged. Expansion and addition of certain features like Shopping Complex in the Administrative Building, a new, Amphitheater for entertainment, jogging track along with the periphery of the sports complex and a spec1aliscd roofing like Kalzip roofing far various stadiums, change in flooring etc. as well as a number of changes were inducted, which was once again responsible for increase in cost. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that these additions in work escalated the cost from the original price of Rs. 206 Crores to Rs. 356. Crares at the time of floating of the tender, it again increased to Rs. 423 Crores when the work was awarded and after the major changes the final cost came to Rs. 506 Crores. 9. Mr. M.S. Mittal. Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaddha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after change of the concept of the complex from an ordinary functional sports complex to a world class complex, the entire scheduled cost estimate mounted to a rate which was more than double the amount, initially stipulated at the time of agreement. 10. Learned counsel has exhibited a series of documents in support of his contention that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay, for two reasons. Firstly, the construction work was to be carried out by the contractors and secondly, the major changes from time to time and also revision in the designs submitted by the petitioner as well as the quality of material to be used, as agreed upon at the inception of the contract, underwent a sea change. The materials finally used was of very high rates. Therefore, considerable time was consumed in approving and procuring those material. The materials finally used was of very high rates. Therefore, considerable time was consumed in approving and procuring those material. It is also contended that the delay was, caused not for any fault on the part of the petitioner but for reason beyond his control. The cost also increased manifolds, but the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. A request was also made for payment 'of the work rendered by the petitioner and for arrears, also for the extended period of contract at the agreed rates as well as proportionate monthly charges for the additional period. A number of reminders demanding payment were sent, but there was no response from the respondents. The contract was to expire on 30.11.2007 and since, the date of expiry was soon approaching. request of the petitioner also became repetitive, but to no avail. Period of contract was also not extended. Several letters have been demonstrated to substantiate this submission by-Mr. Mittal. Senior Advocate, but there was no response. The letters are Annexure-5 series. Annexures-6. 7. 8. 9 and 10 series., Despite the request, the period of contract expired on 30.11.2007, as a consequence, the petitioner had to' stop the work and withdraw himself. Annexure-II is a letter dated 19.04.2008 from the Engineer In-charge. Special Work Division. P.W.D., Ranchi, to the Director of the petitioner cancelling the agreement, on account of the reason that the work of Project Management Consultant (Supervision) was withdrawn after the date of expiry of contract, however, it is asserted that actual work was stopped by the petitioner with effect from 04.02.2008. Reply to the aforesaid letter is Annexure-12 written to the Honble Chief Minister. Jharkhand with copies to all the concerned authorities, as detailed at the bottom of the letter. It was informed that the petitioner was required to be paid for supervision etc. over a period of 18 months, an amount of Rs. 3.09 Crores, but only Rs. 61 lacs was paid to the petitioner and the remaining Rs. 2.48 Crores is outstanding. Besides, certain other expenditure of man power etc. approximately Rs. 20 lacs per month, was not paid. The work was stopped on account of this dispute. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 01.09.2009 (Annexure-13), after a lapse of one and half years to explain why the petitioner may not be blacklisted. 2.48 Crores is outstanding. Besides, certain other expenditure of man power etc. approximately Rs. 20 lacs per month, was not paid. The work was stopped on account of this dispute. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 01.09.2009 (Annexure-13), after a lapse of one and half years to explain why the petitioner may not be blacklisted. The reason for the notice was that the petitioner had shown laxity in the work of Project Management Consultant (Supervision) and deserted the contract without information, this resulted in huge loss and delay in the work. The reply was submitted on 14.10.2009 specifically mentioning that the Engineer In-charge had issued a certificate. certifying the successful and satisfactory completion of the entire Master Plan. Architectural Design. Detailed Engineering Design and Bid Process Management by the petitioner. Sufficient explanation was given for the delay, and also that the petitioner was only required for supervision of the work and since the work was not completed by the contractors, it was impossible to carry out the• supervision. Also that the period of contract was not extended, the petitioner had no option but to withdraw from the work on expiry of the contract. 11. Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions and also brought to my notice various letters written to the petitioner for completion of the work and also to expedite the work entrusted by means of the agreement. There was a meeting held on 19.10.2006 at the• site of construction where the representatives of Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. and Laing and Simplex were present. The question of escalation of cost was discussed in detail. There were discussions and interactions and the reason for delay was attributed to the two contractors as well and also the fact that the Simplex Co. has no experience of construction of Stadium. therefore. it had joined hands with Laing Co. but on enquiry, no Technical or Administrative Officer from the Laing Company was available. Therefore, the cause for delay was attributed to the contractor. The progress of all those meetings has been submitted by the State counsel and concluding part clearly shows that the construction work of the Government was effected because of inaction of the petitioner. Laing and Simplex and other companies. It was decided that severe action is liable to be t8.ken against the erring companies. The progress of all those meetings has been submitted by the State counsel and concluding part clearly shows that the construction work of the Government was effected because of inaction of the petitioner. Laing and Simplex and other companies. It was decided that severe action is liable to be t8.ken against the erring companies. Finally, the order of blacklisting was passed which is impugned in this writ petition. 12. I have perused the documents brought on record, alongwith the writ petition, supplementary affidavit, counter and rejoinder affidavits as well as written submissions. On a close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances, apparently, the petitioner is not solely responsible for the delay caused in completion and consequent escalation of price. The documents on record are vocal inasmuch as major changes were brought about at a large-scale, not only addition of work but also change in quality of the material and products used for construction, escalation of area construction and also the work of the contractor proceeded at a very slow pace. The assertion on the part of the petitioner that the Engineers and the Government officials were hand In glove, is however not substantiated, but for the fact that all the letters have been written to the petitioner by one and same authority but once again, the agreement was entered into by the Engineer and. Therefore, he was the only person responsible. However, this alone would not go to prove and establish malice as contended by the petitioner. Certain factual aspects have been argued at length regarding supply of copies of the drawing of 3-D computerised visual image of the Stadium, model of structure etc. which was demanded by the Executive Engineer and that certain other work which was complained by the Engineer and counter complains were lodged by the petitioner for non-payment of the charges. I am not inclined to decide this factual aspect in the writ petition and evaluate the extent of fault of the petitioner vis-a-vis the contractors and officers of P.W.D. Department. 13. The main question that calls for consideration in the instant case is that whether the order of blacklisting by the respondents calls for any interference or not? I am not inclined to decide this factual aspect in the writ petition and evaluate the extent of fault of the petitioner vis-a-vis the contractors and officers of P.W.D. Department. 13. The main question that calls for consideration in the instant case is that whether the order of blacklisting by the respondents calls for any interference or not? A perusal of the impugned order mentions that the order of blacklisting was passed on a recommendation of a High Level Committee constituted by the Vidhan Sabha, but there is no mention that who were the Members of the said High Level Committee? When did it meet? What was considered in the meeting and whether the petitioner or his representative was asked to appear before the High Level Committee or not? I have noticed that the mention of this high level committee does not finds place in the show cause notice, though the basis of the decision to blacklist is the decision of the high level committee itself. This is disclosed for the first time in the impugned order. 14. Submission on the part of the respondents shows that a decision was arrived at to take action for the delay and escalation in cost against the petitioner along with the contractors also, but apparently, nothing has been done against the contractors. It is the petitioner who alone has been blacklisted. The assertion on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner was to approve the material changes and also the bills submitted by the contractors but when they declined to pass the bills and approve the performance of the contractors, the entire dispute germinated. 15. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner that whole purpose of creating a discord was to oust the petitioner and bring in consultants who could be easily tackled by the contractors, though at the cost of State of Jharkhand. There appears to be some justification in this contention specially since no action has been taken against the contractors, who were admittedly also held responsible for the delay and escalation of price, which is admittedly demonstrated by the documents brought on record, specially since the contractors were responsible for completion of work within stipulated time frame. Equality of opportunity applies to matters of public contract. Equality of opportunity applies to matters of public contract. In the event the Government chooses to exclude some of them by discrimination, evidently the order of blacklisting has an effect of depriving a person of equal opportunity in the matter of public contract and. therefore, a person blacklisted is well within his rights to question the order passed against him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as' far back as in the year 1975 in the case of M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 'and Union of India & Ors. v. A.K. Mithiborwala & Ors., (1975) I SCC 70. quashed the order of blacklisting holding that the order of blacklisting was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The blacklisting and the right of equality under Articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution is squarely applicable in a case where equal opportunity has not been afforded to one of the party. For a ready reference, paragraphs-12, 17 and 20 are quoted below: 12. "Under Article 298 of the Constitution the executive power of the Union and the State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts for any purpose. The State can carry on executive function by making a law or without making a law. The exercise of such powers and functions in trade by the State is subject to Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Equality of opportunity should apply to matter of public contracts. The State has the right to trade. The State has that there the duty to observe equality. An ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any person. The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination. The order of blacklisting ha 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. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality", 17. 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", 17. "The Government is a Government of laws and not of men. It is true that neither the petitioner nor the respondent has any right to enter into a contract but they are entitled to equal treatment with others who offer tender or quotations for the purchase of the goods. This privilege arises because it is the Government which is trading with the public and democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination is such transactions. Hohfeld treats privileges as a form of liberty as opposed to a duty. The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore. there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. Reputation is a part of a person's character and personality. Blacklisting tarnishes one's reputation". 20. "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". 16. In the instant case, the basis of blacklisting is the recommendation by a High Level Committee which the petitioner has demonstrated that he was not even aware till the impugned order was passed and received by him. He was completely oblivious that there was such a Committee in existence. The order of blacklisting on the face of it is against the principle of fair play and justice. Mere issuance of show cause notice is not sufficient, since the basic material of the decision was not brought to notice of the petitioner even in the show cause notice. The show cause notice on the face of it is silent regarding recommendation of the High Level Committee not only for blacklisting but the intimation to be given to all establishments at national and international level. The show cause notice on the face of it is silent regarding recommendation of the High Level Committee not only for blacklisting but the intimation to be given to all establishments at national and international level. This sufficiently speaks volumes. Not only this aspect but the fact that the contractors have been left scot free, is another additional circumstance which conclusively establishes discrimination on the part of the respondents. Undisputedly, no notice was given at the time when the High Level Committee, considered the question of blacklisting. It is an implied principle of law that no order having civil consequence should be passed against a person unless the principles of natural justice are strictly followed. The respondents by discriminating the petitioner with the contractors and issuing show cause notice after a decision was already arrived at by the High Level Committee, is eloquent on the face of it that the action of the respondents is anything but fair play The issuance of show cause was merely an eyewash and the notice was a pre decided step. It is elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representation against the order. The show cause notice makes no mentioned of any such recommendation of the High Level Committee but the impugned order for the first time states that the Vidhan Sabha had constituted a High Level Committee and the recommendation of the said Committee has been recorded in the order. The concluding paragraph of the impugned order of blacklisting is also without consideration of the reply to the show cause notice. In fact, a perusal of the concluding paragraph of the order where the final decision of blacklisting fails to attribute any reason but for the fact that the order was passed under the 'Jharkhand Contractor's Enlistment Rules. 2003. The reply to the show cause notice has detailed the explanation and reasons for the delay in work and escalation of the cost and that the petitioner cannot be singly attributed the sale responsibility. The enlargement of scope of work and also the-change in design of roofing, flooring etc. in addition to a number of structures are clearly responsible for the delay and escalation of price. These explanations have not even been mentioned or discussed in the impugned order which denotes non-consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner. The enlargement of scope of work and also the-change in design of roofing, flooring etc. in addition to a number of structures are clearly responsible for the delay and escalation of price. These explanations have not even been mentioned or discussed in the impugned order which denotes non-consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner. It is only the recommendation which is considered and, therefore. I am of the view that the order of blacklisting is an unilateral decision and predetermined resulting in great prejudice to the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Anr.. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 699. 17. Counsel for the State relied on a decision of Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of V.P. & Ors., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 604 . The facts of the said case are not applicable to the present case. The Apex Court was of the view that since the High Court had called for the entire record and examined the reasons for blacklisting and had recorded its positive findings that the State Government has passed the order after recording elaborate reasons, is far from the facts of the present easel and, therefore. I am of the opinion that this citation has no applicability in the instant case. The order of blacklisting of the petitioner is in respect of the petitioner alone on the recommendation of a Committee which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner till the final order was served upon him. Submission of the learned counsel that the action of the respondents is a blatant abuse of the power and authority is fully justified. I am of the opinion that the order of blacklisting cannot stand the test of fair play and natural justice. Therefore, in my view, the impugned order of blacklisting cannot left to stand. It is liable to be quashed. The recommendation to intimate all establishments at national and international level is also an excessive exercise of power by a single State and. Thus, on the face of it smacks of vindictiveness. 18. In the facts and circumstances, the order dated 20.12.2010 issued from the office of respondent No.3. blacklisting the petitioner is hereby quashed. 19. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.