Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a dealer in Petroleum products. The petitioner was granted dealership of a retail outlet for the sale of petrol/High Speed Diesel Oil, as per the Dispensing Pump and Selling License Agreement, dated 18.4.2005, entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation. As such, the petitioner has been carrying on the business, as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, without any complaint. While so, on 3.11.2010, the officers attached to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial (CT), Enforcement, Chennai, had seized the Tank Truck, bearing registration No.TN.21 F7116, used for transporting MS/HSD loads to the petitioner’s retail outlet. The Commercial Tax Enforcement Department had served a goods detention notice, under Form No.41, on the petitioner, on the ground that MS/HSD was being transferred to the Tank Truck belonging to the petitioner, from another Tank Truck, bearing registration No.TN02 R1390. The MS/HSD load was being transferred into the Tank Truck bearing registration No.TN21 F7116, even though the consignment was meant to be transported to M/s.Venkateswara Agencies, Karasur, Puducherry. 3. It has been further stated that, pursuant to the goods detention order issued by the Commercial Tax Enforcement Department, the petitioner had paid the compounding fee of Rs.2,000/- for the seized Tank Truck, which had been released by an order, dated 4.11.2010. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had no knowledge of the alleged transfer of a MS/HSD load into the Tank Truck, bearing registration No.TN21 F7116, belonging to the petitioner, which has been authorized to carry the consignment. In fact, the petitioner had preferred a complaint, on 3.11.2010, before the Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station, Kancheepuram District, as there was no news about the disappearance of the Tank Truck belonging to the petitioner. Thereafter, it was learnt that the driver of the tank truck had taken the vehicle to a mechanic shed, in order to rectify the problem in the valve used for off-loading the fuel. When the driver of the petitioner’s Tank Truck had given the information about the mal-functioning of valve and the repair works done in the mechanic shed, on 4.11.2010, the complaint made by the petitioner to the Police had been withdrawn. 5. When the driver of the petitioner’s Tank Truck had given the information about the mal-functioning of valve and the repair works done in the mechanic shed, on 4.11.2010, the complaint made by the petitioner to the Police had been withdrawn. 5. It has been further stated that the petitioner had received a show cause notice, dated 15.11.2010, from the third respondent, asking the petitioner to submit its explanation, in respect of the charges mentioned in the said show cause notice, with the available documentary evidence, on or before 22.11.2011. On receipt of the show cause notice issued by the third respondent, the petitioner had written a letter, dated 20.11.2010, denying the charges levelled against it. In the reply letter, the petitioner had stated the facts relating to the events that had taken place, on 3.11.2010 and 4.11.2010. However, the second respondent, by his letter, dated 3.2.2011, had informed the petitioner that the Tank Truck belonging to the petitioner, bearing registration No.TN21 F7116, had been blacklisted by the second respondent Corporation, and the petitioner should explain the circumstances under which the vehicle was found to be involved in the incident concerned. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the blacklisting of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN21 F7116, belonging to the petitioner, had been done by the respondent Corporation without giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The relevant documents and the other evidence relied on by the respondent Corporation, for the blacklisting of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, had not been furnished to the petitioner before the said order had been passed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that nothing has been shown, by the respondent Corporation, to support its claim that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, bearing registration No.TN21 F7116 was involved in the commission of certain irregularities while carrying on its regular transport business, as alleged in the show cause notice issued on behalf of the respondent Corporation. 8. It has been further stated that there was no evidence available before the respondent Corporation, except the information received from the office of the Commercial Tax Enforcement Department, for arriving at the conclusion that the vehicle in question was involved in the alleged irregularities. 8. It has been further stated that there was no evidence available before the respondent Corporation, except the information received from the office of the Commercial Tax Enforcement Department, for arriving at the conclusion that the vehicle in question was involved in the alleged irregularities. Even otherwise, the respondent Corporation ought to have furnished all the necessary records, relied on by it, before passing the impugned circular, dated 25.1.2011, blacklisting the vehicle, bearing registration No.TN21 F7116, and banning the Tank Truck and its crew from entering the terminals and the depots of the respondent Corporation. A fair and proper enquiry ought to have been conducted, by the authorities of the respondent Corporation, before arriving at his conclusion. Further, the basic principles of natural justice had not been followed, by the first respondent, before issuing the impugned circular, dated 25.1.2011. Therefore, the impugned circular of the first respondent, dated 25.1.2011, blacklisting the Tank Truck belonging to the petitioner, bearing registration No.TN21 F7116, is liable to be quashed. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it has been stated that the incident, that had taken place, on 3.11.2010, had been brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation, by way of the information furnished by the Commercial Tax Department, on 6.11.2010. A video clip had also been handed over to the respondent Corporation showing the illegal act committed using the vehicle in question, belonging to the petitioner. 10. It has been further stated that the roving squad of the Commercial Tax Enforcement Department, Central Chennai, had raided the place where the illegal act had been committed and had confiscated the vehicles involved in the act, on 3.11.2010. The vehicle in question had been confiscated for the violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that no such illegal act had taken place, on 3.11.2010, as alleged by the respondent Corporation, cannot be accepted. Since, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision, in NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Vs. GOVT. Since, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision, in NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Vs. GOVT. OF A.P., (2008) 16 SCC 276), to support his contention that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent is liable to be set aside, as it had been passed, blacklisting the vehicle in question, without following the principles of natural justice. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had relied on the decisions, in GROSONS PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD., Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, (2001) 8 SCC 604 , and THE LICENSEE, RAMESH THEATRE Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DIST. (2011 (1) CWC 240), in support of his contentions. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, blacklisting the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, cannot be sustained, as it had been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The blacklisting of the vehicle, bearing registration No.TN21 F7116, belonging to the petitioner, results in certain civil consequences. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have passed the impugned proceedings, by way of a circular, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, after furnishing all the records and other evidence relied on by the first respondent in passing the said proceedings. However, it is seen, from the records available, that such a procedure had not been followed, by the first respondent, while issuing impugned circular, dated 25.1.2011. 14. In such view of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned circular of the first respondent, dated 25.1.2011. Hence, it is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing appropriate orders, afresh, by issuing a notice to the petitioner and after furnishing all the relevant records and the necessary details relied on by the first respondent, while passing the impugned proceedings. Hence, it is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing appropriate orders, afresh, by issuing a notice to the petitioner and after furnishing all the relevant records and the necessary details relied on by the first respondent, while passing the impugned proceedings. The first respondent shall also give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before final orders are passed relating to the incident alleged to have taken place, on 3.11.2010, involving the vehicle, bearing registration No.TN21 F7116, belonging to the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2011 are closed.