1. By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legality of notice under No. Mktg/22-164 dated 7.9.201as been challenged by the petitioners. 2. The petitioner No.1 being the proprietorship firm of the petitioner No.2, deals with contractual matters supply of agricultural inputs like chemical fertilizers, bio-fertilizers, pesticides, micronutrients, seeds, agricultural implements, etc., to various Government Departments and Agencies and for that purpose the petitioners have got a licence to sell stock or exhibit for sale or distribution of insecticides as issued by the Director of Agriculture, State of Assam. 3. There is no dispute about the legal credential of the petitioners. The respondent No.2, the North Eastern Regional Agricultural Marketing Corporation Ltd. ('NERAMAC') had engaged the petitioners for purpose of supply of agricultural inputs like chemical fertilizers, bio-fertilizers, pesticides, micronutrients, seeds, agricultural implements, etc., to various Government Departments and Agencies entrusted with implementation of State and Central Government Scheme. The respondent No.2 having been approached had enlisted the petitioners as one of its suppliers for the said items. For purpose of this enlistment, a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') was entered into between the respondent No.2 and the petitioners on 29.3.2010, on the terms and conditions recited in the said MoU available at Annexure B to the writ petition. The terms and conditions are encapsulated hereunder from the said Annexure B for purpose of appreciation : (i) The MoU would come into force w.e.f. 31.3.2011 subject to renewal on payment of Rs. 1,000 as registration fee with the NERAMAC. (ii) The NERAMAC would participate in the tenders floated by the indenting departments for supply of agricultural inputs and quote rates, terms and conditions which shall be decided in consultation with the petitioners taking into consideration the market rates and adding its own margin. In case of any negotiation needed with the indenting department, the same will also be done in consultation with the petitioners. (iii) If any earnest money/security deposit is required by the indenting department as a condition of order, the same would be deposited by the petitioners. (iv) Any notice or communication to be given or sent by either of the petitioners or the respondents to the other under the MoU should be considered as duly served if the same had been transmitted and delivered to the parties concerned at the address mentioned at the beginning of the MoU. (iv) Any notice or communication to be given or sent by either of the petitioners or the respondents to the other under the MoU should be considered as duly served if the same had been transmitted and delivered to the parties concerned at the address mentioned at the beginning of the MoU. (v) Most importantly, the petitioners would obtain order from the departments concerned for supply of agricultural inputs for and on behalf of the NERAMAC and the NERAMAC in turn, would place the order for execution of the order as per rate, specification, packing, terms and conditions, delivery schedule, delivery point etc. prescribed by the department concerned. (vi) The contractual obligation of the indenting department would be that of the petitioners. However, the NERAMAC or the indenting department or their authorized representative, with prior notice of reasonable period, might enter upon the production centre or storage centre of the petitioners at all working hours for carrying out inspection, stock examination and sampling of the materials to verify its quality and specifications and the petitioners should all the time provide them with all facilities and full co-operation for such inspection and verification. (vii) The petitioners would indemnify NERAMAC against any damage that might cause or arise out of the execution of the order by the petitioners. After execution of the order, the petitioners would submit their bills to the NERAMAC along with receipted challan duly certified/countersigned by the specified authority. (viii) The NERAMAC after receipt of payment from the department concerned, would make payment by account payee cheque to the petitioners within seven days after deducting the taxes, if any, as applicable from time to time and also the service charge for NERAMAC at the rate of 2% of the value of the order. (ix) The service charge of NERAMAC would be reviewed from time to time depending on the item and value of the order. (x) The failure or omission to carry out or to observe any of the terms/provisions or conditions of the MoU during the continuance of an event Force Majeure, should not give rise to any claim by either by the petitioners or by the NERAMAC against each other or be not deemed to be a breach of the MoU if the same is caused by or arises our of Force Majeure. (xi) If any part of this MoU becomes invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the parties should in such an event negotiate in good faith in order to agree the terms of a mutually satisfactory provision to be substituted for the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision which as nearly possible validly gives effect to their intentions as expressed in the MoU. Failure to agree on such a provision within 90 days of commencement of those negotiations should result in automatic termination of this MoU. The obligation of the parties under any invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision of the MoU should be suspended during such a negotiation. (xii) Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove either the petitioners or the NERAMAC reserves the right for termination of this MoU at any time by giving to the other, 90 days notice in writing in that behalf without assigning any reason. Apart that the either party should be entitled to terminate the MoU forthwith upon the other committing breach or default of any of the terms and conditions thereof. (xiii) The MoU was made subject to the jurisdiction of Guwahati only. Terms and conditions as altered or added, if necessary, with mutual consent and all disputes and differences whatsoever that might arise between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning operation or effects of the MoU or the breach thereof should be referred to and settled by arbitrator in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? The Arbitrator would be appointed by the parties by giving notice to each other within the period of 60 days from the date of dispute arose. The venue for the Arbitration would be Guwahati, in the State of Assam. 4. On or before the MoU was entered into, the petitioners and the NERAMAC respondent were transacting and executing supplies to the indenting departments/agencies. The respondent No.3, the Senior Zonal Manager, NERAMAC, by the letter dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure C to the writ petition) placed a supply order of Vermicompost and Bio-fertilizers against the Order No.1. Agri/Fert/State Plan/491/2009-10/11 dated 23.3.2010 as received from the Director of Agriculture, State of Assam and the petitioners were directed to supply those indents as per the requisition. The respondent No.3, the Senior Zonal Manager, NERAMAC, by the letter dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure C to the writ petition) placed a supply order of Vermicompost and Bio-fertilizers against the Order No.1. Agri/Fert/State Plan/491/2009-10/11 dated 23.3.2010 as received from the Director of Agriculture, State of Assam and the petitioners were directed to supply those indents as per the requisition. The printed challans were supplied by the NERAMAC and the petitioners completed the supply of the requisition materials causing delivery to the various officers and on obtaining the signatures on those challans. The challans as relevant in this case annexed as Annexures F and G series. The NERAMAC also received the payment and made payment to the petitioners in reference to the supply order gated 18.3.2010. 5. The respondent No.5, the Asstt. General Manager, Marketing, NERAMAC, placed another order for supplying material/chemical/implement vide order dated 30.4.2010 and challans were issued by the NERAMAC and the petitioners had supplied those requisitioned articles/chemicals to the various officers. The petitioners projected a case that when the petitioners was smoothly executing the supply orders with the NERAMAC, a section of the contractors' firms and suppliers started conspiring against them and they could induct in that conspiracy some of the officers of the NERAMAC. However, names of the firms and the officers have not been disclosed by the petitioners. On 25.8.2011, the respondent No.4, the General Manager, NERAMAC, issued a letter stating that an order for supply of agricultural lime in Nagaon District vide order No.Mktg/22 dated 19.2.2010 though was entrusted with the petitioners, but on repeated reminders the said work of supply was not executed and no explanation whatsoever was provided by the petitioners after lapse of a long time. As a result, the indenting department cancelled the order. The petitioners were similarly accused of non-execution of the supply order dated 11.10.2010 and the said supply order was also cancelled for failure to execute. The petitioners were further accused that though the supply order dated 30.4.2011 for supply of materials under Women Welfare Scheme of Government of Assam was entrusted with the petitioners, several officers from the District Headquarters raised complaints regarding quality of the materials so supplied by the petitioners. The petitioners were further accused that though the supply order dated 30.4.2011 for supply of materials under Women Welfare Scheme of Government of Assam was entrusted with the petitioners, several officers from the District Headquarters raised complaints regarding quality of the materials so supplied by the petitioners. In the circumstances as stated, the letter dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure H to the writ petition) the petitioners were asked why they would not be blacklisted for a period of 3(three) years for their conduct as listed in the said letter dated 25.8.2011. The petitioners were asked to avail the opportunity to explain their reason in writing, failing which it would be presumed by the NERAMAC that they had nothing to explain and the action as proposed would be taken without any further reference. The petitioners by a letter dated 29.8.2011 stated inter alia that the order dated 19.2.2010 for supply of agricultural lime in Nagaon District was concerned, the petitioners had informed the NERAMAC verbally several times that they would not execute the said order since they received the order after a few months from the date of the order and the NERAMAC had, on such information, cancelled the order. As such the petitioners could not be questioned in regard to that order. The petitioners further stated that the order dated 11.10.2010 for supply agricultural inputs to Coconut Development Board was not accepted by the petitioners as there was disagreement in regard to the rate. Consequence thereof the NERAMAC cancelled the order. So far the order dated 30.4.2011 for supply of materials under Women Welfare Scheme of Government of Assam was concerned, the materials were duly supplied as per specification to the District Headquarters after obtaining the receipted challans from all the 14(fourteen) District Headquarters. The certification in the challans contended that the authorized officers had received the materials in good condition. The petitioners had urged the NERAMAC to make a due enquiry if the NERAMAC was in quandary regarding the materials so supplied by the petitioners was of inferior quality. The certification in the challans contended that the authorized officers had received the materials in good condition. The petitioners had urged the NERAMAC to make a due enquiry if the NERAMAC was in quandary regarding the materials so supplied by the petitioners was of inferior quality. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued the notice under No.Mktg/22-164 dated 7.9.2011 as impugned in the writ petition in the form of a notice with the declaration as reproduced hereunder : "It is for the general information of all concerned that the name of M/s. Nilima Enterprise, Sandhyachal Nagar, Lalmati, Basistha Chariali, Guwahati-791029 is put on the blacklist with immediate effect for their erratic attitude, irresponsible behaviour and failure to meet the commitment." 6. The petitioners asserted in the writ petition that the NERAMAC authorities without considering the said explanation as given by the petitioners and without giving any proper opportunity of being heard, issued the notice dated 7.9.2011 informing all concerned that the petitioner No.1 was put on the blacklist with immediate effect and for such declaration by the NERAMAC respondents, the petitioners' credential has become seriously jeopardized, accentuated by extreme arbitrary action of the petitioners. The petitioner further asserted that as per clause 15 of the MoU, either the petitioners or the NERAMAC reserved the right for termination with the MoU at any time with 90 days notice in writing and as per clause 16 of the MoU either the petitioners or the NERAMAC was entitled to terminate the MoU on the ground of breach of any conditions thereof. Clause 18 of the MoU as asserted by the petitioners provides for modification or alteration or addition of any terms and conditions with mutual consent in writing. But at no point of time any alteration or modification or addition was made to the MoU. There was no clause for putting the petitioners on blacklist in the MoU and as such the impugned notice dated 7.9.2011 had been issued in colourable exercise of power and as such the same is required to be interfered with by this court. 7. The further grievance of the petitioners as projected in the writ petition is that on consideration of irrelevant elements, the said notice dated 7.9.2011 was passed and as such that notice is liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr. A.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. 7. The further grievance of the petitioners as projected in the writ petition is that on consideration of irrelevant elements, the said notice dated 7.9.2011 was passed and as such that notice is liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr. A.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. The NERAMAC respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition refuting the allegations of the petitioners. In paragraph 7 of that affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that the petitioners were availing the benefit as the supplier to the respondent NERAMAC and simultaneously acting as a competitor to the respondent corporation. The conduct as such was contrary to the spirit and object of the MoU. They further stated that the NERAMAC respondents had received another order under the National Food Security Mission and the petitioners were not allowed to execute the supply order. When the said supply order was not placed to them and the same was placed to some other supplier firms, the petitioners demonstrated some indecent conduct pursuing "a well laid-out agenda to defame the respondents". In paragraph 25 the NERAMAC respondents had stated that the petitioners did not deny that the materials so supplied by them were of inferior/poor quality. It is really surprising that some additional allegations have been leveled against the petitioners in the affidavit-in-opposition, which demonstrated the intent of the NERAMAC respondents to put the petitioners on blacklist to wreak the vengeance. Apart that what has been stated by the NERAMAC respondents in reply to paragraph 16 of the writ petition is quite surprising. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the NERAMAC authorities were accused of not giving proper opportunity of being heard and of issuing the impugned notice without considering the explanation as furnished by the petitioners on 29.8.2011 (Annexure I to the writ petition). In reply the NERAMAC respondents stated as under : "That in respect of the statements made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the same are denied insofar as that because of the failure on the part of the petitioner to supply the materials, the respondent corporation had to make arrangements to source the materials by finding alternate supplier. In reply the NERAMAC respondents stated as under : "That in respect of the statements made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the same are denied insofar as that because of the failure on the part of the petitioner to supply the materials, the respondent corporation had to make arrangements to source the materials by finding alternate supplier. It is averred that since the petitioner had themselves admitted for their failure to supply the materials, and had conveyed the reasons for such failure vide their explanation dated 28.8.2011, it was not considered necessary to give a chance of personal hearing merely as a formality." There is no statement whether the explanation of the petitioners dated 29.8.2011 was considered or not in the entire affidavit-in-opposition. It cannot be treated as mere omission. Apart that the attitude as demonstrated from the statement that it was not considered necessary to give a chance of personal hearing as a formality is definitely not congenial to act harmonious to the principle of natural justice. Particularly when credential of a firm was offended by a general declaration of putting the firm on blacklist. 10. Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied a decision as reported in Mis. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR 1975 SC 266 , where the Apex Court has held as under : "16. In passing an order of blacklisting the Government Department acts under what is described as a standardized Code. This is a Code for internal instruction. The Government Departments make regular purchases. They maintain list of approved suppliers after taking into account the financial standard of the firm, their capacity and their past performance. The removal from the list is made for various reasons. The grounds on which blacklisting may be ordered are if the proprietor of the firm is convicted by court of law or security considerations so warrant or if there is strong justification for believing that the proprietor or employee of the firm has been guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud, or if the firm continuously refuses to return Government dues or if the firm employs a Government servant, dismissed or removed on account of corruption in a position where he could corrupt Government servant. The petitioner was blacklisted on the ground of justification for believing that the firm has been guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud. The petitioners were blacklisted on the ground that there were proceedings pending against the petitioners for alleged violation of provisions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 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 the democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in 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 any one but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. Reputation is a part of person's character and personality. Blacklisting tarnishes one's reputation." 11. In Mis. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court further held that 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. 12. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the NERAMAC respondents stoutly submitted that by the letter dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure H to the writ petition) the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to explain their position in the context of contemplation to blacklist the firm. As such Mis. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) according to the learned Sr. counsel has no relevance in the present context. He further submitted that this court should not make a roving enquiry whether the allegations and reply thereof make a case for blacklisting or not. As such Mis. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) according to the learned Sr. counsel has no relevance in the present context. He further submitted that this court should not make a roving enquiry whether the allegations and reply thereof make a case for blacklisting or not. Rather this court should confine its role to the process that has been adopted in putting the petitioners' firm in the blacklist. 13. While considering the rival contentions a very pertinent question that emerged for consideration is that whether mere issuance of the show-cause would absolve the NERAMAC respondents from discharging their duties so far as it relates to giving proper opportunity is concerned. If it is found on record there was no consideration of the explanation so given by the petitioners whether that would be considered as compliance of giving opportunity to the petitioners. The process of issuing show-cause cannot be allowed to be converted into window dressing. If the veil from the action is lift, it is found that there was no consideration of the explanation as furnished by the petitioners, it cannot be stated that the petitioners were given opportunities at all as the decision as revealed from the statement appearing in paragraph 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition appears to be premeditated one. In this regard a decision of the Apex Court in Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer, (PWD), Ernakulam and Ors., (1978) 3 SCC 36 would be of some assistance to this court. Where it has been held that this being the position, the rule in Erusian Equipment's case will be attracted with full force. While conceding that the State can enter into contract with any person it chooses and no person has a fundamental right to insist that the Government must enter into a contract with him, this (sic.) court observed "blacklist" has prevented 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. 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. An objective assessment cannot be made unless the explanation as furnished by the petitioners are carefully taken into consideration with regards to the authorities as available from the terms and conditions of the MoU. In the MoU only penal clause that is available is that if any breach is registered in execution of the work for which the MoU was entered into, either the petitioners or the NERAMAC respondents might call off the MoU itself. Nowhere it has been permitted that the petitioners being a party would be put on blacklist generally declaring in the public that they have been put on blacklist by the NERAMAC respondents. Ex facie the action of the NERAMAC respondents is arbitrary and opposed to the principles of fundamental of fair play. Moreover, in absence of any statement in the affidavit-in-opposition that the explanation so furnished by the petitioners was considered to have an objective satisfaction, the impugned notice dated 7.9.2011 (Annexure J to the writ petition) was published in derogation of fundamentals of fair play. 14. Situated, thus, this court hold unhesitatingly that the action of the respondents is tainted by arbitrariness and in breach of the understanding as was entered into and as such the impugned notice (Annexure J to the writ petition) is interfered with and set aside, as the petitioners were not afforded the opportunity as they were so entitled to inasmuch as their representation was not taken care of to have an objective satisfaction by the NERAMAC respondents. In the rule of law there is no room for window-dressing. Empty formality of issuing notice and not considering the response objectively cannot be treated as compliance of the fundamentals of fair play, which are sine qua non for assessing whether the action affecting some individuals or individual who is involved in trade or in relation of business with the Government or its agencies, is fair or not. Empty formality of issuing notice and not considering the response objectively cannot be treated as compliance of the fundamentals of fair play, which are sine qua non for assessing whether the action affecting some individuals or individual who is involved in trade or in relation of business with the Government or its agencies, is fair or not. It is a fundamental principle of fair hearing incorporated in the doctrine of natural justice and as a rule of universal obligation that all administrative acts or decisions affecting rights of individuals must comply with the principles of natural justice and the person or persons sought to be affected adversely must be afforded not only an opportunity of hearing, the State must act fairly, just the same as anyone else legitimately expected to do and where the State action fails to satisfy, it is liable to be struck down by the courts in exercise of their judicial review jurisdiction. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order as to cost.