D. Datta, J. - (1.) An order dated 22.3.2010 of the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (hereafter the Corporation) blacklisting the petitioner No. 1 (hereafter the company) in the matter of all commercial transactions including but not limited to charter hire/lease of the corporation's assets directly and indirectly for a period of five years with immediate effect is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
(2.) On the date the writ petition was moved, I was of the view that any affidavit from the Corporation is not likely to improve the impugned order which gave a detailed account as to why the order of blacklisting was made. I thus proposed to hear the writ petition without exchange of affidavits to which the parties agreed.
(3.) It is not in dispute that a show cause notice dated 9.3.2010 calling upon the company to explain why, for reasons mentioned therein, it shall not be blacklisted and the company's response to the same by its reply letter dated 19.3.2010 preceded the impugned order of blacklisting. The law declared by the Supreme Court in its decisions reported in : (1975) 1 SCC 70, Eurasian Equipments Ltd. v/s. State of West Bengal and Ors., and : (2001) 8 SCC 604: Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v/s. State of U.P., relied on by Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the Corporation has thus rightly not been contended on behalf of the petitioners to have been observed in the breach. On the contrary, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate for the petitioners contended that the impugned order of blacklisting is clearly perverse, malafide and absolutely without jurisdiction having regard to the antecedent facts.;