11. As seen from the record in this particular case, the petitioner has not been put on prior notice before the order of black-listing has been passed. Further, the impugned order does not reveal under what provision of law, the authorities have passed the order of black-listing. Further, it is to be noted that in case the objection petition made by the petitioner was defective i.e. not enclosing the challan of Rs. 1000/-, the authority could have simply rejected the application, but for reasons best known to them, they have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is trying to defraud the authorities of Rs. 1000/-. Had the petitioner been put on prior notice, it could have come to their knowledge that the petitioner has actually taken two challans and the said two challans were annexed to only one objection petition. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the authorities that the petitioner is trying to defraud the authorities of Rs. 1000/- is without any basis. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the punishment of blacklisting is a very harsh punishment having serious civil and financial consequences, only if the allegations against a particular person are very serious in nature then only the punishment of black-listing can be passed. But in this particular case the authorities without any verification of the objection petition made by the petitioner have black-listed the petitioner that to without
