Messrs NIZAMI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through sole Proprietor vs CHIEF

' By communication dated 5-4-2004, the petitioner was informed that "your firm is hereby blacklisted and debarred from future tendering in GEPCO and all other DISCOs throughout Pakistan on account of execution of substandard Electrical Lines and Distribution System". This order has been impugned through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Leaving aside the respective contentions and allegations and counter-allegations, one thing that is evident from the material placed on the record is that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before taking such a drastic action which undoubtedly adversely affected the repute, credibility and commercial activity of the petitioner. The perusal of letter dated 25-2-2004 showed that the petitioner was only asked to submit its explanation regarding the deficiency pointed out in the said letter. There was no indication therein as to the proposed or contemplated action of blacklisting of the Company of the petitioner. In Zulfiqar Ali v. Divisional Superintendent (Workshops), Pakistan Railways, Mughalpura, Lahore and another PLD 2001 Lah. 13, I had the occasion to consider the import and effect of blacklisting of a company, firm or person. It was found and held that the blacklisting of a company/firm/person tarnishes its reputation, credibility, honour and even dissuades other parties from entering into contracts with the blacklisted company or firm. It was observed that an action of blacklisting had to be through a speaking order, which should be based on sound and justifiable ground and that an adequate show-cause notice and hearing to the petitioner should precede the action. In the present case as mentioned above, since no due and proper show-cause notice was given to the petitioner qua the contemplated action against him the order of blacklisting is not consistent with law which is, therefore, not sustainable. The order impugned is thus, liable to be struck down.

Thus, by declaring order, dated 5-4-2004 as of no legal effect, the petition is accepted with an option left with respondents to proceed in the matter if so desired after due notice to the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs.