ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein order dated 06.02.2019 by the Manager (O & S), Life Insurance Corporation of India is under challenge whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been blacklisted w.e.f. 11.05.2018 from doing DG Set related work in L.I.C. 2. The ground urged by the petitioner is that before blacklisting no opportunity of hearing has been given and further the blacklisting is permanent in nature and therefore, before imposing the harsh punishment of blacklisting the petitioner forever, the authority ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner in order to reach to the rightful conclusion and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation has submitted by referring to the condition stipulated in the LIC of India (Stores) Code, 1959 (as amended up to 31.07.2011) wherein there is a provision of of blacklisting/removal of the empanel firm from the panel which provides that the blacklisting can be either temporary i.e., for specified period or permanent depending upon the circumstances under which the firm has been blacklisted/removed. 4. The temporary blacklisting/removal can be confined to a specific job and therefore his submission is that the decision by the authority cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error. 5. Further submission that although no instruction has been received with respect to non-observance of the principles of natural justice but he fairly submits from the face of the impugned order that since there is no reference of show cause, therefore, even if the show cause notice would have been issued, it will be said to be violation of principles of natural justice since there is no proper consideration which can be said from a bare reading of the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that even though there is provision to blacklist but before doing that minimum requirement of providing opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided since blacklisting leads to civil consequences. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that even though there is provision to blacklist but before doing that minimum requirement of providing opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided since blacklisting leads to civil consequences. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions it is evident that the petitioner who happens to be in the work contract with the LIC with respect to DG Set related work, have been expannelled sometime in the year 2016, has been found to be involved in commission of malpractices by submitting forged draft licence for DG set related work upon which he has been empaneled in the LIC which on enquiry has been found therefore, the impugned decision has been taken by blacklisting the petitioner on the ground of forgery. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the issue of nonobservance of the principles of natural justice. 9. The writ petition is under the heading of fresh filing and therefore, there is no counter affidavit since the matter is being heard for the first time but this Court is disposing of the writ petition at this stage with the consent of the parties since short question of violation of principles of natural justice has been raised which can be tested from the bare reading of the impugned order and even if the respondent would be directed to file counter affidavit and if they will come with the stand that the principles of natural justice has been followed, then also it will be said to be non-consideration of the reply of the show cause and it is not in dispute that even if the show cause has been issued and if the same has properly been responded but there is no proper consideration amounts to violation of principles of natural justice for the reason that unreasoned order will be said to be an arbitrary order, therefore, this Court after going through the impugned order dated 06.02.2019 and from the face of it, it is evident that there is no reference of any show cause and as such there is no consideration of the response. 10. 10. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that while taking a decision, depriving a party by taking penal action, the bare requirement of observance of principles of natural justice is to be resorted to but since it has not been followed hence the impugned order dated 06.02.2019 is not held to be sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly the same is quashed. 11. In the result, the matter is remitted before the competent authority to take decision afresh after issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 12. The petitioner is directed to submit proper response within a period of three weeks thereafter, which shall be taken into consideration on its own merits and the decision shall be taken within a period of two weeks thereafter. 13. In case of no reply by the petitioner, in terms of show cause notice as directed to be issued, the order impugned will said to be in operation. 14. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of. 15. Further course of action will depend upon the decision taken by the authority as directed.