Clear show cause notice required before blacklisting; omission to disclose proposed adverse action violates natural justice.

Blacklisting carries serious civil and stigmatic consequences, so it must follow a clear, valid and particularised show cause notice. The notice must disclose not only the alleged breaches but also the specific adverse action proposed, either expressly or by necessary implication, so the noticee has a meaningful opportunity to respond. A notice alleging negligence and breach of contract, without mentioning blacklisting, is insufficient; a bid-condition clause referring to blacklisting cannot cure that defect. An order of blacklisting that goes beyond the scope of the notice violates natural justice and is invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Corporation could validly blacklist the appellant for five years when the show cause notice did not expressly or clearly indicate that blacklisting was proposed.

Analysis: Blacklisting has serious civil and stigmatic consequences and therefore must be preceded by a clear, valid and particularized show cause notice. A notice must state not only the alleged breaches but also the specific adverse action proposed, or at least disclose it clearly by necessary implication, so that the noticee has a meaningful opportunity to respond. The notice issued by the Corporation alleged negligence and breach of contract, but it did not mention blacklisting and did not otherwise make that proposed action discernible. A clause in the bid document that refers to blacklisting as an eligibility condition cannot substitute for a clear proposal in the notice itself. Since the impugned blacklisting order travelled beyond the scope of the notice, it offended natural justice.

Conclusion: The blacklisting of the appellant was invalid and could not be sustained.

---