The Revival of Ray XXXV

Erusian Equipments and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 1975 (1) SCC 70 and Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, 1989 (1) SCC 229 as well as Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 699; Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2001) 8 SCC 604 and B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548 have now clarified that before any drastic adverse action, such as a debarring or blacklisting, an opportunity of hearing and representation against the proposed action is necessary. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this. The principle is too well entrenched, in the legal ethos of this country, to be ignored.”

Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, M/s. Daffodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., [Civil Appeal No. 9417 of 2019].


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.”

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray, Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 1975 (1) SCC 70.