Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAGHUNATH THAKUR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Decided
8 November 1988
Judges listed
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 867 · 1988 INSC 345
Also cited as
  • (1989) 1 SCC 229 (52 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1989 SC 620 (16 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0392/1988 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SABYASACHI MU.KHARJI, J. Special leave granted.

p. 868, margin B

. The order dated 25th March, 1988 of the Collector is under challenge in thi~ appeal. The same reads as follows:

p. 868, margin B

"Shri Raghu Nath Thakur S/o Late Gorakh Thakur, Village Repura, P .S. Puksha, District Samastipur had bid for Rs.11,900 (Rupees eleven thousands only) per month Dak in an auction .of Beni Country liquor shop held on 27 .3.88 and he as given the shop of Beni..Coui:ttry liquor but after .signing in BandoliastfRegister he did not deposit dak amount.

p. 868, margin B

The name of Shri Raghu Nath Thakur S/o Late Gorakh Nath Village Repura, P.S. Pusa, Distt. Samastipur is therefore placed in the black list for future under the

p. 868, margin D

orders passed by the Collector, Samastipur."

p. 868, margin E

This order was passed pursuant to the order of the Collector. The letter dated 25th March, 1988, states as follows:

p. 868, margin E

"The Collector of the district after perusal of the said office note passed order on 25.3.88 which is produced in verbatim below: · Ist bidder chunki defaulter hai atah security prapt kar lea

p. 868, margin E

tatha bhavishya ke liae Black list karen."

p. 868, margin F

Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of black-listing the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the Sta\e Government .that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before black-listing any person. In so far as the contention th.at there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principie. of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed 'only after following the principles of.natural justice. It has to be realised that black-listing any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if tlie rules do not express so, it is an elementary pr1ndple of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the orcler. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the order in so far as it directs black-listing of the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law. In the premises, that portion of the order directing that the appellant be placed in the black-list in respect of future contracts under the Collector is set aside. So far as the cancellation of the bid of the appellant is concerned, that is. not affected. This order will, however, not prevent the State Government or the appropriate authorities from taking any future steps for black-listing the appellant if the Government is so entitled to do so in accordance wi.th law, I.e. giving the appellant due notice and an opportunitY' of making representation. After hearing the appellant, the State Government will be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with law indicati!lg the reasons therefor. We, however, make· it quite clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the11ppellant. The appeal is thus disposed of. S.K.A. Appeal disposed of.

pp. 868–869, margin F