ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has incorrectly held that the appellant has an alternative remedy, whereas, there is no alternative remedy to the appellant. He would submit that present is not an issue relating to claim of certain payments, but the appellant's challenge to the order of blacklisting rests on one of the main grounds that without proposing the action of blacklisting, the impugned order was passed, and therefore, it was contrary to the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70 . He submits that the legal position is settled in the case of Erusian Equipment (supra) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He supports his contentions by relying on the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Private Limited & Ors. v. Food Corporation of India & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 551 . 3. There is no representation made on behalf of the respondents. 4. The factual premise of the case stated in the writ petition is that notice was issued to the appellant on 13.08.2020 levelling allegations with regard to his ineligibility to participate in the process of tender for supply of Ayurvedic medicines. The appellant submitted reply on 18.08.2020 to the said notice. The reply of the appellant, however, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, an order was passed on 20.11.2020 by which the appellant was blacklisted. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that alleging certain deficiencies and conditions relating to eligibility, notice was issued to him, it was never proposed in the said notice that the petitioner may be blacklisted. Without admitting the allegations, the argument is that without giving a show cause notice, proposing action of blacklisting, no order of blacklisting can be passed by the respondents. 6. Without admitting the allegations, the argument is that without giving a show cause notice, proposing action of blacklisting, no order of blacklisting can be passed by the respondents. 6. The consequences of non-observance of principles of natural justice before passing the order of blacklisting was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of its earlier decision in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70 , in the following terms: “12.....The order of blacklisting has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. 15.....The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. It creates a barrier between the persons blacklisted and the Government in the matter of transactions. The black lists are instruments of coercion. 20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” 7. The aforesaid legal position was succinctly stated in subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of them being- Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229, Gorakha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105 . In the case of Gorakha Security Services (supra), the Court was required to decide whether the action of blacklisting could have been taken without specifically proposing/ contemplating such an action in the show-cause notice. This aspect was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as below: “Contents of the show-cause notice 21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. This aspect was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as below: “Contents of the show-cause notice 21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. 22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show-cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this agent, However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements: (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action. (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.” 8. The legal position, therefore, which emerges that for a show cause notice to constitute basis for blacklisting, the notice must spell out clearly or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred that the noticee is proposed to be black listed. 9. The legal position, therefore, which emerges that for a show cause notice to constitute basis for blacklisting, the notice must spell out clearly or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred that the noticee is proposed to be black listed. 9. In the show cause notice, which was given to the appellant, it does not state that the appellant may be blacklisted. 10. Blacklisting is a serious issue. In a given case, tender awarded to a person may be cancelled or even recovery can be ordered. Further, a decision of blacklisting a person adversely affects his right to carry on trade or business. In such a situation, the observance of principles of natural justice is necessary and cannot be allowed to be diluted. 11. In the present case, as we find, the notice did not state any such requirements that the appellant's show cause is against the proposed action of blacklisting. The appellant submitted his reply, but the authorities did not accept the same. Irrespective of other consequences, which can follow on such consideration regarding eligibility, terms and conditions, we are of the firm view that an order of blacklisting could not be passed without giving the appellant an opportunity to the appellant to show cause against proposed action of blacklisting. In one of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India & Anr. (supra), it is clearly held as below: “24. A plain reading of the notice makes it clear that the action of blacklisting was neither expressly proposed nor could it have been inferred from the language employed by the Corporation in its show cause notice. After listing 12 clauses of the “Instruction to Bidders”, which were part of the Corporation's Bid Document dated 25.11.2016, the notice merely contains a vague statement that in light of the alleged leakage of question papers by the appellant, an appropriate decision will be taken by the Corporation. In fact, Clause 10 of the same Instruction to Bidders section of the Bid Document, which the Corporation has argued to be the source of its power to blacklist the appellant, is not even mentioned in the show cause notice. In fact, Clause 10 of the same Instruction to Bidders section of the Bid Document, which the Corporation has argued to be the source of its power to blacklist the appellant, is not even mentioned in the show cause notice. While the notice clarified that the 12 clauses specified in the notice were only indicative and not exhaustive, there was nothing in the notice which could have given the appellant the impression that the action of blacklisting was being proposed. This is especially true since the appellant was under the belief that the Corporation was not even empowered to take such an action against it and since the only clause which mentioned blacklisting was not referred to by the Corporation in its show cause notice. While the following paragraphs deal with whether or not the appellant's said belief was well-founded, there can be no question that it was incumbent on the part of the Corporation to clarify in the show cause notice that it intended to blacklist the appellant, so as to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the same. 25. The mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice. The Corporation's notice is completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in the show cause notice to black list, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply for the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 does not fulfil the requirements of a valid show cause notice for blacklisting. In our view, the order of blacklisting the appellant clearly traversed beyond the bounds of the show cause notice which is impermissible in law. As a result, the consequent blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 cannot be sustained.” 12. Apparently, mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice. As a result, the consequent blacklisting order dated 09.01.2019 cannot be sustained.” 12. Apparently, mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice. Their Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the action of blacklisting without proposed action of blacklisting could not be sustained in law. In view of the above consideration, impugned order to the extent of black listing the appellant, is declared null and void and is set aside. It is made clear that we have only interfered with the action of respondents in blacklisting the appellant and nothing more. 13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.