JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order bearing No.RCB/HVR/KTPP/AP-01/2017-18 dated 27.12.2017 passed by respondent No.5 and order bearing No.G/AA/KUKAHA/C-3/766/ 2017-18 dated 04.08.2017 passed by respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner claims that he is a contractor who supplies manpower to various departments of the Government. Respondent No.4 by notification dated 09.02.2017 issued E-tender for supply of manpower, i.e., to supply of 13 Pharmacists and 17 Junior Lab Technicians. The petitioner applied to the tender. The petitioner being the lowest tenderer succeeded in the tender process. Respondent No.4 issued work order dated 13.04.2017 for supply of 13 Pharmacists and 17 Junior Lab Technicians for the period from 15.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that, before issuing the work order, on 26.03.2017 respondent No.4 had issued a paper publication inviting application to outsource the work of Pharmacists and Lab Technicians on contract basis. The petitioner did not supply the manpower in pursuance to the work order dated 13.04.2017, which necessitated respondent No.4 to issue notice dated 26.07.2017 alleging that the petitioner has supplied only 5 Pharmacists as against 13 Pharmacists and they have information that the petitioner has not paid three months salary to Lab Technicians and Pharmacists. The petitioner conducted himself contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender harassing the employees. Hence, explanation was sought as to why he should not be blacklisted. In pursuance to the show-cause notice, the petitioner replied on 30.07.2017 refuting the allegations stating that he has not supplied the manpower at all. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, by order dated 04.08.2017, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner cancelled the tender awarded to the petitioner and for feited the EMD amount of Rs.90,000/- and ordered for blacklisting the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.108383/2017. The writ petition was disposed of observing that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority for redressal of his grievance. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, Belagavi against the order of cancellation of tender and blacklisting. The Regional Commissioner by order dated 27.12.2017 rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division, Belagavi against the order of cancellation of tender and blacklisting. The Regional Commissioner by order dated 27.12.2017 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cancellation of tender and blacklisting the petitioner is in total violation of principles of natural justice. Except the show cause notice, no proceeding has taken place before the Deputy Commissioner and no enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the tender and that the petitioner has not paid the salary to the Pharmacists and Lab Technicians. He submits that the quantum of punishment, i.e., imposition of permanent blacklisting, is not permissible and the punishment imposed is too harsh. The allegation contained in the show cause notice if proved also could not warrant blacklisting. If the successful tenderer fails to execute the work order, the terms of tender notification provides only for forfeiting of EMD and awarding tender to next lowest tenderer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.158/2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur to recover the EMD and security deposits. He submits that the suit has nothing to do with the prayer sought in the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned AGA justifies the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner failed to supply the workforce as per the work order, by which respondent No.4- department suffered in carrying out its functions. It affected the public health services. It is also his submission that the petitioner has failed to pay salary to those Lab Technicians and Pharmacists who have worked for more than three months. It is also the submission of the learned AGA that the petitioner has made allegations against the officials also stating that they have misused his letter heads. Further, it is submitted that taking into consideration the entire facts and contentions raised by the petitioner, the Regional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition. 6. Further, it is submitted that taking into consideration the entire facts and contentions raised by the petitioner, the Regional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the writ papers, the only question which arises for consideration is: Whether the respondent No.2 is justified in passing the impugned order dated 04.08.2017 by which the tender awarded to the petitioner is cancelled and decision is taken to blacklist the petitioner permanently? 7. Admittedly, respondent No.4 by Etender notification dated 09.02.2017 invited tenders for supply of 17 Junior Lab Technicians and 13 Pharmacists. The petitioner became the successful bidder being the lowest tenderer. Respondent No.4 on 13.04.2017 issued work order for supply of 13 Pharmacists and 17 Junior Lab Technicians. It is petitioner's case that, he has not supplied 13 Pharmacists and 17 Junior Lab Technicians as per the work order. But the case of the respondents is that the petitioner has supplied only 5 Pharmacists out of 13 and the petitioner has not paid salary to those Lab Technicians and Pharmacists and acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender. The petitioner was admittedly issued with show-cause notice dated 26.07.2017. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 30.07.2017. 8. The show-cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner has supplied only 5 Pharmacists out of 13 Pharmacists; the petitioner has not paid salary to the Lab Technicians and Pharmacists for three months and the petitioner has conducted himself contrary to the terms and conditions of the Contract which affected the public health services. In his reply, the petitioner denied the supply of 8 Pharmacists. It is his case that he has not supplied any Pharmacists or Lab Technicians in pursuance to the work order issued on 13.04.2017. It is stated in petitioner's reply that the respondents on their own filled up the post of Pharmacists and Lab Technicians. When this was the reply by the petitioner, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner ought to have conducted an enquiry confronting the documents available with the respondents which were relied upon to pass impugned order dated 04.08.2017. It is stated in petitioner's reply that the respondents on their own filled up the post of Pharmacists and Lab Technicians. When this was the reply by the petitioner, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner ought to have conducted an enquiry confronting the documents available with the respondents which were relied upon to pass impugned order dated 04.08.2017. The allegations made in the show-cause notice and the ground on which the impugned order dated 04.08.2017 is passed requires a formal enquiry to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is to be blacklisted. Blacklisting of a Contractor would have a serious civil consequences on the person against whom blacklisting would be ordered. Blacklisting of a person that too permanently affects his further entering into contract with the respondent or any other Governmental agencies. Blacklisting is in the nature of penalizing a person. Therefore, one should have an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist. The authority which blacklists should arrive at a conclusion that one should be blacklisted based on the strong material available on record and gravity and nature of allegation. 9. In the case on hand, the petitioner is awarded contract and work order was issued on 13.04.2017. Respondent No.1 invited E-tender by notification dated 09.02.2017. Clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the tender reads as follows: xxxxxxxxxxx 10. A reading of the above Clause would make it clear that if the successful tenderer fails to execute the work in pursuance to the work order, his EMD may be forfeited and tender could be awarded to next lowest bidder. When such being the consequences of not executing the contract work, the petitioner would not have been blacklisted for not executing the work order or executing the work order partially. The respondents had entered into an agreement with the petitioner. It is open for the petitioners to enforce the terms of the agreement and they are also at liberty to recover the damages if any suffered by non-execution of the work in pursuance to the work order issued to the petitioner. 11. The next question would be whether the allegation made against the petitioner in the show-cause notice warrants blacklisting of the petitioner. There is no allegation of any fraud or misappropriation or act which caused loss to the respondent-Government. 11. The next question would be whether the allegation made against the petitioner in the show-cause notice warrants blacklisting of the petitioner. There is no allegation of any fraud or misappropriation or act which caused loss to the respondent-Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 has noted certain grounds which could lead to blacklisting of a Contractor. In the instant case, no such allegations are made against the petitioner so as to warrant blacklisting. The allegation against the petitioner that he has short supplied or not paid salary are not in the nature or gravity warranting blacklisting of petitioner. 12. The respondents without application of mind passed the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner. Blacklisting is for permanent in nature under the impugned order. The respondents could not have passed blacklisting the petitioner permanently which would be too harsh. The blacklisting is in the nature of penalty. The blacklisting should be for a specific period. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Respondent No.2 is not justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the question is answered in the negative. Hence, Annexure-H and K are quashed. Annexure-H blacklisting the petitioner is of dated 04.08.2017 and almost one year nine months have elapsed. The petitioner has suffered the order for more than one year nine months. Hence, it is not a case for remand to reconsider the matter. 13. With the above, the writ petition is disposed of.