Blacklisting upheld where supplier failed to perform and the order was found consistent with natural justice.

Blacklisting was upheld where a supplier accepted a steel supply arrangement but failed to execute the contract or commence supply, and gave no reply to the show-cause notice. The order was found consistent with natural justice and not arbitrary, unwarranted, or irrelevant. The High Court's refusal to interfere under Article 226 was approved, and no ground was found for interference under Article 136.

---

---

Issues: Whether the blacklisting order passed against the petitioner called for interference in writ jurisdiction and whether any ground was made out for special leave under Article 136.

Analysis: The petitioner had negotiated to supply steel, received acceptance, but failed to execute the contract or commence supply. Even after notice to show cause, no reply was given. The respondents, therefore, took action to secure the required supply and blacklisted the petitioner for two years. The order was held to be consistent with natural justice and not arbitrary, unwarranted, or irrelevant. The High Court's refusal to interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 was approved, and no ground was found for interference under Article 136.

Conclusion: The blacklisting order was upheld and interference was declined.

---