JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner had earlier come up before this Court in relation to an agreement with regard to the supply of Solar Pumps. The petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of the said supply order had filed W.P.No.11490 (M/B) of 2015. The same was disposed of on 15.12.2015 by making a provision that it shall be open to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the authority concerned that shall be decided within six weeks. 3. The decision pursuant thereto has been taken by the respondent-corporation on 15.02.2016. 4. The petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the said order as also an order relating to black listing which is dated 04.10.2015 and which has been signed by the Director on 04.11.2015 which is contained in Annexure no.4 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel contends that when the earlier writ petition had been disposed of on 15.12.2015, no information had been given to this Court about the aforesaid black listing order by the respondent corporation and as such it could not have been challenged, hence the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the black listing order is concerned the same does not appear to have been passed after notice an opportunity to the petitioner and even otherwise the order appears to have been dated in a manner so as to non suit the petitioner for all future contracts including his existing contract. The said order, therefore, has a direct impact on the impugned information dated 15.02.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 7. After having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Nishant Shukla for the respondent corporation submits that the matter pertaining to black listing is not final and the order dated 04.10.2015 signed on 04.11.2015 is a wrong order. In view of this conceded position the order of black listing, therefore, becomes unenforceable and even otherwise the orders dated 04.10.2015/ 04.11.2015 are in violation of principles of natural justice. The said orders have a direct impact on the decision taken on 15.02.2016. 8. Consequently for all the above reasons the order dated 04.10.2015 cannot be sustained which is also evident from the conceded position as indicated by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 9. The said orders have a direct impact on the decision taken on 15.02.2016. 8. Consequently for all the above reasons the order dated 04.10.2015 cannot be sustained which is also evident from the conceded position as indicated by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 9. Accordingly the order dated 04.10.2015 and the rejection order dated 15.02.2016 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. 10. However, the respondents shall first proceed to decide the issue relating to black listing and then proceed to dispose of the representation again as directed by our judgment dated 15.12.2015 preferably within four weeks' from the date of presentation a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3.