ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This writ appeal is directed against impugned order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein has been allowed and the order of blacklisting dated 26.10.2018 has been quashed. 2. The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein filed writ petition seeking quashment of order dated 26.10.2018 blacklisting him for the period of 5 years from the date of order, alleging that the copy of CBI report on which the order of blacklisting has been based was not supplied to him despite having been demanded by application dated 26.07.2018. Furthermore, show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner with predetermination and opinion has already been formed to blacklist him and, therefore, it was a mere formality to issue show cause, as such, order of blacklisting was liable to be set aside. The said petition was opposed by the writ appellant herein that the order of blacklisting has been passed strictly in accordance with law. 3. Learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 26.10.2018 by which the writ petitioner was blacklisted holding that the CBI report, which was the basis of the blacklisting of the writ petitioner was never served to the writ petitioner and the Food Corporation of India (for short “FCI”) was predetermined to blacklist the writ petitioner-union on the date of serving show cause notice to him. The aforesaid order of blacklisting has been called in question. 4. Mr. B.P. Gupta, counsel for the appellant/FCI, would submit that the learned Single Judge was absolutely unjustified in quashing the order of blacklisting by recording a finding which is perverse to the record as the CBI report dated 16.12.2017 was against the writ petitioner and was a confidential document and while issuing the show cause notice, FCI was not predetermined to blacklist the writ petitioner and, therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, would support the impugned order and submit that the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in setting aside the order of blacklisting as FCI has already formed its opinion by pre-deciding the issue while issuing the show cause notice and secondly, the CBI report dated 16.12.2017 which was the basis for impugned order was never served to the writ petitioner despite it was demanded by application dated 26.07.2018, as such, writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1, which is a registered trade union, was awarded contract by FCI for the period from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2012 to handle the goods for transportation at Mahasamund by appointment letter dated 02.07.2010 issued by FCI Regional Office Raipur. The FCI issued show cause notice dated 12.07.2018 relying upon the report of CBI dated 16.12.2017 and recommended the writ petitioner to be blacklisted to which the writ petitioner vide memo dated 26.07.2018 demanded a copy of CBI report dated 16.12.2017 to file appropriate reply to show cause, but it was not supplied to him and ultimately by order dated 26.10.2018 respondent No.1 has been black listed. It is the case of respondent No.1 that appellant FCI has already formed its opinion to black list the petitioner union while issuing show cause notice that is the reason that the contents of the show cause notice and the order of black listing are same rather order of black listing is verbatim reproduction of the contents of the show cause notice. 8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the contents of the show cause notice, which states as under:- Notice Whereas, M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh Mahasamund was appointed as RH-H&T Contractor at Mahasamund for the period of two years with effect from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2012 vide appointment letter No.S&C/13/RH-H&T/Mahasamund/2010 dated 02.07.2010 by FCI RO Raipur. Whereas, State Warehousing Corporation (SWC) Chhattigsgarh, Raipur had also engaged its own transporter M/s Chawla Road Carriers for handling and transportation of foodgrains stored by FCI at its Mahasamund depot during the period 06.01.2010 to 05.01.2012 vide order dated 07.01.2010. Whereas, State Warehousing Corporation (SWC) Chhattigsgarh, Raipur had also engaged its own transporter M/s Chawla Road Carriers for handling and transportation of foodgrains stored by FCI at its Mahasamund depot during the period 06.01.2010 to 05.01.2012 vide order dated 07.01.2010. The next work order for the same work also issued to M/s Chawla Road Carriers for the period 06.04.2012 to 05.04.2014. M/s Chawla Road Carriers was awarded RH-H&T Work by SWC for the works of FCI at SWC Mahasamund depot at lower rate than that of M/s CGGHRMMM awarded by FCI Raipur. Wherein, you made a conspiracy with M/s Chawla Road Carriers and claimed excess/double payment. Further, CBI after lodging the FIR investigated the matter and submitted its report dated 16.12.2017. The premier investigating agency of India, after making thorough investigation established that both M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh, Mahasamund (M/s CGGHRMMM) and M/s Chawla Road Carriers involved themselves in criminal conspiracy with each other which caused heavy financial loss to the Corporation. The investigation report of CBI further reveals that Shri Jasbir Singh Makkad (Judy Papu) representative of Chawla Road Carriers was also the representative of the M/s CGGHRMMM in the same year which show that there was deep rooted criminal conspiracy between both the firms to cheat and cause huge financial loss to the FCI. It was further revealed in the investigation that transportation charges claimed by CGGHRMMM was physically handed over to Shri Jasbir Singh Makkad (Judy Papu) as per instruction of Narayan Lal Chandrakar (representative of CGGHRMMM and same was duly mentioned in the cash book/work register of (M/s CGGHRMMM) maintained by Narayan Lal Chandrakar. The Fact as to refund of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty five lakh) to M/s CGGHRMMM was also established after thorough investigation of the CBI. From the above mentioned fact it is ample clear that M/s CGHRMMM and M/s Chawla Road Carriers cheated the FCI by making criminal conspiracy and caused the heavy financial loss to the FCI. For your act/omission/commission, CBI registered a FIR No.RC1242016A0005 dated 07.06.2016 for the offence punishable U/s.120B r/w 420 467, 468, 471 & 477A of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and you/your representative has been made accused in the FIR. Further, CBI after completing investigation submitted its report dated 16.12.2017 and recommended to black list M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh Mahasamund. Further, CBI after completing investigation submitted its report dated 16.12.2017 and recommended to black list M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh Mahasamund. Hence, in view of investigation report and recommendation of CBI it is directed to explain that, why M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh Mahasamud be not black-listed. 9. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to notice order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the FCI which states as under:- Order Whereas, M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh Mahasamund was appointed as RHH& T Contractor at Mahasamund for the period of two years with effect from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2012 vide appointment letter No.S&C/13/RH-H&T/Mahasamund/2010 dated 02.07.2010 by FCI RO Raipur. Whereas, State Warehousing Corporation (SWC) Chhattigsgarh, Raipur had also engaged its own transporter M/s Chawla Road Carriers for handling and transportation of foodgrains stored by FCI at its Mahasamund depot during the period 06.01.2010 to 05.01.2012 vide order dated 07.01.2010. The next work order for the same work also issued to M/s Chawla Road Carriers for the period 06.04.2012 to 05.04.2014. M/s Chawla Road Carriers was awarded RH-H&T Work by SWC for the works of FCI at SWC Mahasamund depot at lower rate than that of M/s CGGHRMMM awarded by FCI Raipur. Wherein, M/s CGGHRMMM made a conspiracy with M/s Chawla Road Carriers and claimed excess/double payment. Further, CBI after lodging the FIR investigated the matter and submitted its report dated 16.12.2017. The premier investigating agency of India, after making thorough investigation established that both M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh, Mahasamund (M/s CGGHRMMM) and M/s Chawla Road Carriers involved themselves in criminal conspiracy with each other which caused heavy financial loss to the Corporation. The investigation report of CBI further reveals that Shri Jasbir Singh Makkad (Judy Papu) representative of Chawla Road Carrier was also the representative of the M/s CGGHRMMM in the same year which show that there was deep rooted criminal conspiracy between both the firms to cheat and cause huge financial loss to the FCI. It was further revealed in the investigation that transportation charges claimed by CGGHRMMM was physically handed over to Shri Jasbir Singh Makkad (Judy Papu) as per instruction of Narayan Lal Chandrakar (representative of CGGHRMMM and same was duly mentioned in the cash book/work register of (M/s CGGHRMMM) maintained by Narayan Lal Chandrakar. The Fact as to refund of Rs. It was further revealed in the investigation that transportation charges claimed by CGGHRMMM was physically handed over to Shri Jasbir Singh Makkad (Judy Papu) as per instruction of Narayan Lal Chandrakar (representative of CGGHRMMM and same was duly mentioned in the cash book/work register of (M/s CGGHRMMM) maintained by Narayan Lal Chandrakar. The Fact as to refund of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty five lakh) to M/s CGGHRMMM was also established after thorough investigation of the CBI. From the above mentioned fact it is ample clear that M/s CGHRMMM and M/s Chawla Road Carriers cheated the FCI by making criminal conspiracy and caused the heavy financial loss to the FCI. For this act/omission/commission, CBI registered a FIR No.RC1242016A0005 dated 07.06.2016 for the offence punishable U/s.120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and aforesaid contracts/their representative has been made accused in the FIR. Further, CBI on completing investigation submitted its report dated 16.12.2017 and recommended to black list M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh Mahasamund. Notice no.S&C/13/RHH& T/Mahasamund/2013/Part File/978 dated 12.07.2018 and this office vide letter dated 28.09.2018 has intimated that CBI directed not share the investigation report being confidential cannot be shared and said party was directed to submit the reply by 6th October 2018 positively otherwise corporation will be free to initiate appropriate action. The aforesaid contractor has not submitted his reply till date so far although the letter dated 28.09.2018 was delivered to him on his address. It shows the M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh has nothing to say in his defence. I have carefully gone through the report of the CBI dated 16.12.2017 and all other account available on records and applying my independent judicious mind I am of the view that M/s CGGHRMMM after making criminal conspiracy with M/s Chawla Road carrier caused heavy financial loss to the corporation and allowing or giving any other opportunity him to repeat such type of incident in future is not in the interest of public at large as such it would be appropriate to blacklist M/s CGGHRMMM for a period of Five Years. Therefore, M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh is hereby blacklisted for a period of Five (5) Years from the date of issue of this order. 10. Therefore, M/s Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh is hereby blacklisted for a period of Five (5) Years from the date of issue of this order. 10. A careful perusal of the order of black listing would show that the first three paragraphs of the order of black listing is verbatim reproduction of the show cause notice and thereafter, it has been stated that reply to show cause has not been filed and thereafter blacklisting order has been passed. As such, argument on behalf of respondent No.1 that while issuing the show cause notice by appellant – FCI, appellant – FCI has already taken the decision to black list respondent No.1 and the show cause notice was issued to demonstrate the rules of natural justice have been complied with, is duly established on the face of record. 11. In the matter of Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India and another, (2007) 1 SCC 331 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that where the competent authority had already made up his mind before giving an opportunity of hearing, the post decisional hearing is a forgone conclusion and there is tendency to uphold its order once the decision has been taken and relying upon its earlier decision, it has been held as under:- “14. A post-decisional hearing was not called for as the disciplinary authority had already made up its mind before giving an opportunity of hearing. Such a post-decisional hearing in a case of this nature is not contemplated in law. The result of such hearing was a foregone conclusion. 15. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 this Court opined:- "...It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose." [See also V.C. Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC 42 ” 12. Similarly, in the matter of Ramesh Chadra v. Delhi University and others, (2015) 5 SCC 549 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have dealt with issue, though with regard to the service dispute, but held in para 46 as under:- “46. Similarly, in the matter of Ramesh Chadra v. Delhi University and others, (2015) 5 SCC 549 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have dealt with issue, though with regard to the service dispute, but held in para 46 as under:- “46. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the respondent first decided to punish the appellant and only thereafter a memorandum of charges was framed, show-cause notice was issued and enquiry was conducted, just to give it a colour of legal procedure.” 13. Similarly, in the matter of Siemens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 12 SCC 33 , it has been held, where the statutory authority has already applied its mind and formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant therein, the writ petition would be maintainable against the show cause notice and held in paras 9 to 11 as under:-. “9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179 , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (supra). It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice. 10. The said principle has been followed by this Court in V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant (supra) stating: "48. The Vice-Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. A post-decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case. 49. 10. The said principle has been followed by this Court in V.C., Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant (supra) stating: "48. The Vice-Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondent herein. A post-decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case. 49. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (supra) this Court held : 'It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose.'” (See also Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India (supra) Rajesh Kumar v. D.C.I.T., (2007) 2 SCC 181 ) 11. A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a showcause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was maintainable.” 14. Returning to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, appellant – FCI has already applied its mind to facts of case taken decision to blacklist the writ petitioner while issuing show cause notice to respondent No.1 on 12.07.2018 and thereafter, issued the show cause notice and ultimately, blacklisted the writ petitioner union/respondent No.1 herein, which is evident from the fact that three paragraphs of show cause notice has been lifted and it has been reproduced as it is, in the order of blacklisting with addition of operative order of blacklisting. In our considered opinion, the FCI had already formed its mind while issuing show cause notice based on recommendation of CBI report to blacklist respondent No.1 herein and after completing the formality of issuing show cause notice, blacklisted the writ petitioner union/respondent No.1, rather it had given the post decisional hearing which the learned Single Judge has rightly held that FCI has predetermined to blacklist the writ petitioner union/respondent No.1 herein. 15. 15. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that appellant – FCI, at the stage of issuing show cause notice, was predetermined to blacklist the writ petitioner union/respondent No.1 herein. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this regard. 16. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would next contend that finding of learned Single Judge that non supply of the copy of CBI report relied upon in show cause notice is violative of the principles of natural justice which is contrary to well settled law in this regard. 17. It is well settled that before placing the name of person on blacklist that person is entitled to be heard. [See : M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 1975 SC 266 , Joseph Vilangandan v. The Executive Engineer (P.W.D.) Ernakulam and others, AIR 1978 SC 930 , Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others, (1989) 1 SCC 229 Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 699, Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 , Oryx Fishery Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427 & State of Odisha and Others v. Panda Infraproject Limited, (2022) 4 SCC 393 ] 18. However, the question for consideration would be, whether the copy of the CBI report, which has been relied upon by the FCI to blacklist the petitioner was required to be supplied to the writ petitioner union/respondent No.1 herein which the writ petitioner union/respondent No.1 herein also demanded by application but it was not supplied ? 19. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 8 SCC 604 . 19. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 8 SCC 604 . In this case relying upon the vigilance report, petitioner therein was blacklisted but the copy of the vigilance enquiry report was not supplied to petitioner therein and it was the contention on behalf of the petitioner there in before the Supreme Court that the copy of the vigilance inquiry report/material on the basis of which he was blacklisted should have been supplied to which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that it is sufficient requirement of law that the opportunity to show cause was given to the petitioner therein and held in para 2 as under:- “2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that seeing the nature and seriousness of the order passed against the appellant, the respondent ought to have supplied all the materials on the basis of which the charges contained in the show-cause notice were based along with show-cause notice and in the absence of supply of materials, the order impugned is against the principles of natural justice. We do not find any merit in this contention. Admittedly, the appellant has only contractual relationship with the State Government and the said relationship is not governed by any statutory rules. There is no statutory rule which requires that an approved contractor cannot be blacklisted without giving an opportunity of show-cause. It is true that an order blacklisting an approved contractor results in civil consequences and in such a situation in the absence of statutory rules, the only requirement of law while passing such an order was to observe the principle of audi alteram partem which is one of the facets of the principles of natural justice. The contention that it was incumbent upon the respondent to have supplied the material on the basis of which the charges against the appellant were based, was not the requirement of principle of audi alteram partem. It was sufficient requirement of law that an opportunity of show-cause was given to the appellant before it was blacklisted. It is not disputed that in the present case, the appellant was given an opportunity to show cause and it did reply to the show-cause which was duly considered by the State Government. It was sufficient requirement of law that an opportunity of show-cause was given to the appellant before it was blacklisted. It is not disputed that in the present case, the appellant was given an opportunity to show cause and it did reply to the show-cause which was duly considered by the State Government. We are, therefore, of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondent while blacklisting the appellant was in conformity with the principles of natural justice.” 20. In the instant case also there is no statutory rule requiring that the FCI/appellant herein should supply the copy/material relied upon along with the show cause notice to respondent No.1/union. In that view of the matter, one of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that copy of the CBI report ought to have been supplied to the writ petitioner union before passing the order of blacklisting is not correct finding. 21. Finally, part of the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the FCI has already formed its opinion to blacklist the petitioner union while issuing the show cause notice is upheld while the other part of the order that CBI enquiry report ought to have been supplied to the writ petitioner union/respondent No.1 herein is not being upheld. Resultantly, writ appeal deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, in view of the finding recorded here in above, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).