ORDER : Seeking quashing of order contained in memo dated 02.03.2012 whereby the petitionerCorporation has been blacklisted, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner Corporation is a Government Company wholly owned by the State of Haryana. Pursuant to letter dated 06.05.2010 of the Director, Agriculture, Expressions of Interest were invited for submission, for which last date was 12.05.2010. The petitioner Corporation vide letter dated 10.05.2010 furnished details of seeds which it was capable of supplying through its co-producer. The petitioner-Corporation was given work order for supply of Maize seed for different districts. It was also given supply order for “Kulthi” seed of “Madhu” variety for Palamu district vide work order dated 18.08.2010. It is stated that the petitioner-Corporation was also given work orders for supply of various quantity of seeds of different variety of Maize, Moong, Potato, Toria, Niger, Kulthi-Madhu, Paddy, Arhar etc. From the seeds supplied by the petitioner-Corporation, samples were taken and sent for analysis and after inspection and verification of the quality of seeds, part-payment was also made to the petitioner-Corporation. On 29.11.2011, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that in Palamu district, growth of Kulthi seeds supplied by the petitionerCorporation was not satisfactory. A 3Man Committee was constituted which also found that growth of Kulthi plant was negligible and thus, sample of Kulthi seed was sent for DNA test which was done at NBPGR, Pusa, New Delhi. The test report indicated that there was considerable admixture in the seed lot of the variety provided. The petitioner-Corporation submitted its reply on 24.02.2012 however, vide order dated 02.03.2012, the petitioner-Corporation was blacklisted. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 stating that on complaints made by the farmers that the Vanaspati growth of plants of Kulthi of Madhu variety, an information was given by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu to the Director, Agriculture vide letter dated 14.04.2011 recommending that the supplier of the seed may be put in the blacklist category. Accordingly, the sample of Kuthi-Madhu variety was sent to the National Bureau of Plant Genetics Resources, New Delhi for DNA test. The test report revealed that there was considerable admixture in the seed lot of the variety provided. Accordingly, the sample of Kuthi-Madhu variety was sent to the National Bureau of Plant Genetics Resources, New Delhi for DNA test. The test report revealed that there was considerable admixture in the seed lot of the variety provided. It was further observed that the released variety VLG 10 is distinct for the profile from the test variety “Madhu”. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 29.11.2011 was issued to the petitioner-Corporation for taking appropriate action for its fraudulent act. After considering the reply of the petitioner-Corporation, order dated 02.03.2012 was passed, blacklisting the petitioner-Corporation and withholding payment of balance amount and also for initiating action for recovery of the payment made to it. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation submits that without affording an opportunity of hearing to challenge the test-report or to explain the findings in the test report and without supplying a copy of the test report, the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 has been passed which is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that though, the petitioner-Corporation supplied different variety of seeds in different districts of the State of Jharkhand however, no complaint whatsoever was received in respect of the quality of the seeds supplied by the petitioner-Corporation. Still, only on the basis of complaint made by some farmers, punitive action has been taken by the respondents behind the back of the petitioner-Corporation, which is in gross violation of the rules of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is a matter of record that the vegetable growth of the Kulthi-Madhu seeds supplied by the petitioner-Corporation was negligible which resulted in financial loss to the poor farmers. The petitioner-Corporation played fraud upon the poor farmers by supplying inferior quality of seeds and therefore, a decision has been taken to blacklist the petitioner-Corporation and to recover the payment made to it. The petitioner-Corporation played fraud upon the poor farmers by supplying inferior quality of seeds and therefore, a decision has been taken to blacklist the petitioner-Corporation and to recover the payment made to it. It is further submitted that the allegation that the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner is baseless in as much as, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner-Corporation on 29.11.2011 in which the report of the DNA test was brought to the notice of the petitioner however, the petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation and therefore, the decision contained in letter dated 02.03.2012 has been taken. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the materials brought on record, I gather that it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Corporation supplied different variety of seeds of Maize, Moong, Potato, Toria, Niger, Kulthi-Madhu, Paddy, Arhar etc. and there has been no complaint in respect of supply of seeds except, Kulthi-Madhu seed. The petitioner has asserted that after it supplied seeds of different variety, samples were taken and sent for testing and thereafter, order for payment was issued. The supply was made pursuant to work order dated 18.08.2010 whereas, a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner-Corporation more than one year thereafter, that is, on 29.11.2011. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau wrote letter on 14.04.2011 informing the Director, Agriculture the complaints received from the farmers however, it does not appear from the materials brought on record that copies of the complaints received from the farmers were supplied to the petitioner-Corporation. It also appears that before sending the samples of Kulthi-Madhu seed for DNA test, the petitioner-Corporation was neither informed nor the sample for DNA test was drawn in presence of the petitioner-Corporation. Moreover, it is also not denied that except, show-cause notice dated 29.11.2011, no opportunity was given to the petitioner-Corporation for explaining the observation in the test report. A copy of the test report has also not been furnished to the petitioner-Corporation, though a copy of the same has been filed along with the counter-affidavit. The petitioner-Corporation is a Government Corporation wholly owned by the Government of Haryana. The decision contained in letter dated 02.03.2012 blacklisting the petitioner-Corporation would certainly entail serious consequences to a Government Corporation in its business dealings. The petitioner-Corporation is a Government Corporation wholly owned by the Government of Haryana. The decision contained in letter dated 02.03.2012 blacklisting the petitioner-Corporation would certainly entail serious consequences to a Government Corporation in its business dealings. I further find that the order of blacklisting is not limited for a period rather, it is for an indefinite period which cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has submitted that the possibility that the farmers themselves mixed some other variety of seed cannot be overruled. Considering these facts, I am of the opinion that order dated 02.03.2012 has been passed in gross breach of rules of principles of natural justice and therefore, the matter is required to be heard by the respondent no. 2 afresh. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 Director, Agriculture for taking a fresh decision after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Corporation.