G.S. Sistani, J.— (Oral) 1. With consent of parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. Petitioner was an approved contractor of the MCD registered vide registration No.1911/IV, (Civil) dated 24th April 2008. Petitioner seeks quashing of letter dated 7th September 2012 by which the petitioner has been black-listed and has been removed from the list of approved contractors. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. 2. That the petitioner has been executing contracts with the respondent No.1. In the years 2008-2009 various tenders were floated for execution of works in different areas of Shahdara, North Zone. The petitioner being an approved contractor also submitted his bids for awarding of works and consequent thereto work orders No.EE/SH/TC/08-09 141, 142, 143, 144 all dated 02.05.2008, EE/SH/TC/08-09 299 dated 02.09.2008, EE-MI/SH/N/TC/08-09 517 dated 31.03.2009 and EE-MI/SH/N/TC/08-09 27 dated 25.05.2009 were awarded in favour of the petitioner by the respondents. As per the petitioner, after the award of the said works petitioner started execution of the works awarded and arranged for men and material and also completed the same within the stipulated period as mentioned in the work orders. After completing the work the petitioner approached the concerned JE and AE and requested them for preparing and passing his bills. However, the concerned officials did not do so for extraneous reasons as they demanded a bribe. Consequent thereto the petitioner filed a complaint against Shri S.K.Mittal and Shri R.K.Mittal in the Vigilance/Anti Corruption department. Consequent to the complaint of 19th November 2008 an FIR No.38/08 was registered and the said officials were caught red handed accepting bribe money from the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner personally visited the offices of the respondents and also sent various letters including letters dated 16th December 2008, 22nd January 2010, 2nd June 2010 and 24th December 2010 requesting the respondents for preparation and release of his bills but no action was taken on account of the complaint made by the petitioner. In the year 2011 again various tenders were floated. The petitioner submitted his bids and he was awarded work contracts in his favour but his bills were not cleared which forced the petitioner to approach the Court for recovery of his hard earned money. In the year 2011 again various tenders were floated. The petitioner submitted his bids and he was awarded work contracts in his favour but his bills were not cleared which forced the petitioner to approach the Court for recovery of his hard earned money. Out of the three recovery suits filed two suits were decreed in favour of the petitioner on 2nd February 2012 and the third suit is still pending. Petitioner claims to have filed another suit for recovery in the Delhi High Court which is also pending. It is contended that on account of the legal action initiated by the petitioner against the officials of the respondent by lodging a complaint in the Vigilance department and also on account of filing of recovery suits the petitioner has been black-listed. Counsel submits that no specific notice to show-cause was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be black-listed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned notice dated 7th September, 2012 was issued to the petitioner on account of his failure to execute the works awarded to him and for this reason the petitioner was black-listed. She further submits that notices in this regard were issued. However, she does not dispute the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be black-listed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether a contractor can be black-listed without issuance of a specific show-cause notice or not. This question was also a subject matter of consideration in the case reported as 1975 (1) SCC 70 Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. wherein it was observed as under:- “14. The State can enter into contract with any person it chooses. No person has a fundamental right to insist that the Government must enter into a contract with him. A citizen has a right to earn livelihood and to pursue any trade. A citizen has a right to claim equal treatment to enter into a contract which may be proper, necessary and essential to his lawful calling. 15. The blacklisting order does not pertain to any particular contract. The blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur. A citizen has a right to earn livelihood and to pursue any trade. A citizen has a right to claim equal treatment to enter into a contract which may be proper, necessary and essential to his lawful calling. 15. The blacklisting order does not pertain to any particular contract. 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 blacklists are "instruments of coercion". 16. In passing an order of blacklisting the Government department acts under what is described as a standardized Code. This is a Code for internal instruction. The Government departments make regular purchases. They maintain list of approved suppliers after taking into account the financial standard of the firm, their capacity and their past performance. The removal from the list is made for various reasons. The grounds on which blacklisting may be ordered are if the proprietor of the firm is convicted by court of law or security considerations so warrant or if there is strong justification for believing that the proprietor or employee of the firm, has been guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud, or if the firm continuously refuses to return Government dues or if the firm employs a Government servant, dismissed or removed on account of corruption in a position where he could corrupt Government servant. The petitioner was blacklisted on the ground of justification for believing that the firm has been guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud. The petitioners were blacklisted on the ground that there were proceedings pending against the petitioners for alleged violation of provisions under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act.” 5. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 . Para 24 of the judgment reads as under: “In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. We do not agree with the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in the judgment under appeal.” 6. In the case of Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1989) 1SCC 229 the Supreme Court, in para 4, observed as under:- “Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of black-listing the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before black-listing any person. In so far as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that black-listing any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order.” 7. The present writ petition is to be decided on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made very serious allegations against the respondent. The present writ petition is to be decided on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made very serious allegations against the respondent. It has been stated that after due completion of works awarded to him his bills were not being cleared by the concerned officials for extraneous reasons as they were demanding a bribe from him and harassment melted out to him was to an extent that he filed a complaint against Mr.S.K. Mittal and Mr.R.K. Mittal in the Anti Corruption Department and consequent thereto an FIR was lodged against the said officials who were caught red handed while accepting the bribe from the petitioner. The petitioner was further harassed as his bills were not being cleared which forced him to file three civil suits, two of which have been decreed in his favour. According to the petitioner these are all grounds for blacklisting him. 8. In the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) it has been held that a citizen has a right to claim equal treatment to enter into a contract. Since an order of blacklisting involves civil consequences besides it casts a slur on the conduct of the petitioner it has far reaching consequences. No doubt a contractor can be blacklisted for various reasons including being guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption and fraud but surely a person cannot be blacklisted in case he has complained of corruption in the Department which of course can only be decided upon in case the petitioner is granted a hearing and a show cause notice so that the real reason for his blacklisting can come to light. Admittedly no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 7th September, 2012 is quashed. Rule is made absolute. 9. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. 10. Needless to say it will be open to the respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner if so advised.