JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking writ, order or direction for following reliefs : (a) Writ of or in the nature of a Mandamus or appropriate directions do issue commanding and directing the Respondents (i) to withdraw, recall and cancel the purported Letters of Termination dated 6th June, 2007 being Annexure "P/8" hereto and purported Order of blacklisting dated 7th June, 2007 being Annexure "P/16" hereto and to forebear from giving any effect thereto or acting in terms thereof. (ii) to forthwith pay to the Petitioner Company a sum of Rs. 1,05,45,760/- realised by encashment of Bank Guarantees furnished and/or cause to be furnished by the Petitioner Company in respect of Contract Package No. KOT/WS/11 upon the Petitioner No. 1 simultaneously furnishing and/or causing to furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee for the said sum in favour of the Respondent No. 1. (b) Writ of or in the nature of a Prohibition or appropriate directions do issue prohibiting the Respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the purported Letters of Termination dated 6th June, 2007 being Annexure "P/8" hereto; (c) A writ of or in the nature of a Certiorari or appropriate directions to issue calling upon the Respondents, to certify and send up to this Hon'ble the records relating to this case also that the said purported Letters of Termination dated 6th June, 2007 being Annexure "P/8" hereto and the purported encashment of the Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,05,45,7601- may be quashed and conscionable justice rendered; (d) An appropriate writ, Order or Direction to issue for production of all relevant records and for protection of all the rights of your Petitioners and for granting your Petitioners such reliefs as in the circumstances of the case shall be just; (e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) to (d) above. (f) If the Respondents fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule NISI be made absolute." 2. The petitioners have also prayed for interim relief restraining the respondents from awarding any contract in favour of any person other than the Petitioner No. 1 for execution of the balance work under Contract 5 Package No. KOTNVS/11 till disposal of this application and further prayed for refund of Rs. The petitioners have also prayed for interim relief restraining the respondents from awarding any contract in favour of any person other than the Petitioner No. 1 for execution of the balance work under Contract 5 Package No. KOTNVS/11 till disposal of this application and further prayed for refund of Rs. 1,05,45,7601- realised by the respondent No. 1 by way of encashment of Bank Gaurantee upon the petitioner No. 1 and alternatively prayed that a Technical committee may be constituted by this comprising of experts to enquire into and submit a report on the technical specifications of hydro-testing of AC pipelines. 3. Brief facts of the case are that tenders were invited by the respondent No. 1 for providing, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of various sizes distribution pipelines in Kota under Package No. KOTNVS/11, Lot-I and II. The petitioner Company submitted its tender in response to the invitation to tender and the contracts were allotted in favour of the petitioner Company and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 10.02.2004. pursuant to the acceptance letter dated 10.02.2004, the petitioner Company furnished requisite performance securities in accordance with the provision of Clause 45 of the Conditions of Contract and 10% of the Contract price with a sum of Rs. 52,74,500/- for Lot No. 1 and Rs. 52,71,260/- for Lot No. 2. Securities were furnished in the form of Bank Guarantees in respect of contract Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 for Contract Package No. KOTNVS/11. 4. The dispute arose when the respondents vide letter dated 06.06.2007 terminated the contract agreement executed between the petitioners and the respondents on the ground that the petitioner Company has failed to execute the work within the stipulated period as evident by work order which was issued on 10.02.2004 by the respondents in favour of the petitioner Company and vide letter dated 12.05.2004 Notice to Proceed with the work for providing laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of various sizes Distribution pipelines at Kota City (Package No. KOTNVS/11) Lot-i has been issued. The contract price for this work is Rs. 5,27,45,000/- and as per the work order of petitioner Company have to start the work from the issuance of the work order within 14 days from the date of this notice to proceed. The contract price for this work is Rs. 5,27,45,000/- and as per the work order of petitioner Company have to start the work from the issuance of the work order within 14 days from the date of this notice to proceed. In the notice to proceed, the date of commencement of work is mentioned as 12.05.2004 and contract completion date is mentioned as 11.05.2005 and thus 12 months from the date of issuance of this letter were given to complete the entire work. 5. The petitioners have not only challenged the termination order dated 06.06.2007 but also challenged the letter dated 07.06.2007 Annexure-P-16, by ago which the petitioner Company is black listed for all works under RUIDP 6. It is not disputed that pursuant to the termination order dated 06.06.2007, a sum of Rs. 1,05,45,760/- has been realised by the respondents by encashment of bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners and the action of the respondents encashing the bank guarantee is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that without issuing prior notice to the petitioner Company, bank guarantee cannot be encashed. 7. Similarly the petitioner has also challenged the Annexure P-16 dated 07.06.2007 blacklisting the petitioner Company without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and without issuing any notice whatsoever to them. 8. The termination order dated 06,06.2007 has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that delay in completion of the work within the stipulated time has been entirely due to reasons attributable to the respondent No. 1 and not attributable to the petitioner Company. Learned Sr. 5 Counsel Mr. Mehta referred documents annexed with the writ petition to show that the petitioner is not at fault for delay in executing the work and further submits that the petitioner had never accepted that any breach of contract had been at all.committed by them and they were at all responsible for any delay. 9. He also referred Clause 52 of Section-Ill of the Conditions of to Contract which reads as under : "52. 9. He also referred Clause 52 of Section-Ill of the Conditions of to Contract which reads as under : "52. TERMINATION : 52.1 The Employer or the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the other party causes a breach of the Contract.52.2 Breaches of Contract include, but are not limited to : (a) the Contractor stops work when no stoppage of work is shown on the current program and the stoppage has not been authorised by the Employer; (b) the Employer instructs the Contractor to suspend the Works and the instruction is not withdrawn within 28 days; (c) the Employer or the Contractor is made bankrupt or goes into liquidation other than for a reconstruction or amalgamation; (d) a payment certified by the Employer is not paid to the Contractor within 84 days of the date of the certificate; (e) the Employer gives Notice that failure to correct a particular Defect is a breach of Contract and the Contractor fails to correct such Defect within a reasonable period of time determined by the Employer; (f) the Contractor does not maintain the performance security which is required, pursuant to the Contract; (g) the Contractor has delayed the completion of the Works by the number of days for which the maximum amount of liquidated damages can be paid, as defined in the Contract Data; and (h) if the Contractor in the judgment of the Employer has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing or in executing the contract." 10. After referring Clause 52 of Section Ill, he also referred the documents to show that the delay was caused on the part of respondent No. 1 and not on the part of the petitioner Company and further submits that the impugned termination order dated 06.06.2007 is malafide which is evident from the fact that the purported terminated letters have been ante dated in order to secure compliance with clause 45.4 of the Conditions of Contract and thus try and save the invocation of the Bank Guarantees from invalidity on the ground of non-compliance of clause 45.4 of the Conditions of Contract. 11. 11. It is also submitted that the letters were prepared and signed on as 08.06.2007, the date upon which the same document was dispatched and the termination order is also challenged on the ground that the respondents while issuing this termination order, have not followed the bare minimum principle of natural justice and no notice whatsoever has been issued to call upon the petitioners. The petitioners have also explained the reasons for delay as non availability of the working permission due to shut down and other reasons. 12. As the term of the contract was extended by the respondents considering that the delay was caused on their part. Further the order passed blacklisting the petitioner Company is also challenged on the ground that before blacklisting the petitioner neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. Similarly before 5 encashment of the bank guaratnee notice is required to be issued, which has not been issued and thus, the respondents have- violated bare minimum principle of natural justice. 13. Further as per Clause 45.4 of Section ill of the Conditions of Contract, the Employer may claim against the surety if any of the following occurs for 14 days or more : (a) the Contractor is in breach of the Contract and the Employer has notified him that he is; and (b) the Contractor has not paid an amount due to the Employer. 14. Thus before encashment, as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, notice was required to be issued to the petitioner alleging that he has breached the contract and has not paid amount due to the employer. Therefore, the action of the respondents is in clear violation of Clause 45.4 of Section Ill of the Conditions of Contract. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred Clauses 21.1 and21.4 of Section IV of the Conditions of Contract, which read as under : "21.1 Engineer's Decision : if any dispute, of any kind whatsoever arises between the Employer and the Contractor in connection with, or arising out of, the Contract or the execution of the Works, whether during the execution of Works or after their completion, and before or after 25 repudiation or other termination of the Contract, including any dispute as to : (a) the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned. (b) the quality of the workmanship or materials, (c) any opinion, instruction, determination, certificate or valuation of the Engineer, or (d) any other question, claim, right matter or anything whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, design, drawings, specification estimates, instructions, conditions, orders or the failure to execute the same. The dispute shall, in the first place, be referred in writing to the Engineer who has jurisdiction over the works specified in the Contract, with a copy to the other party. Such reference shall state that it is made pursuant to this Clause. Not later than 28 (twenty eight) day after the day on which he received such reference the Engineer shall give written notice of his decision to the Employer and the Contractor. Such decision shall state that it is made pursuant to this Clause. Subject to the other forms of settlement hereinafter provided, the Engineer's decision in respect of every dispute or difference so referred shall be final and binding upon the Contractor and the Employer. Unless the Contract has already been repudiated or terminated, the Contractor shall, in every case, continue to proceed with the Work with all due diligence and the Contractor 50 and the Employer shall give effect forthwith to every such decision of the Engineer until or unless the same shall be revised in amicable settlement or hereinafter provided." "21.4. Arbitration : Any dispute in respect of which : (a) the decision, if any, of the Engineer has not become final and binding pursuant to Sub-Clause 21.1 and (b) amicable settlement has not been reached within the period stated in Sub-Clause 21.3, shall be finally resolved by arbitration. The arbitration will take place in to accordance with Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the arbitration will take place at Jaipur. Arbitration may be commenced prior to or after completion of the Works, provided that the obligations of the Employer, the Engineer and the Contractor shall not be altered by reason of the arbitration being conducted during the progress of the works. 16. It is also submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that while terminating the contract on account of breach of Conditions of Contract, the respondents cannot assess damages and power to assess damages is confined only to cases where breach is admitted. 16. It is also submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that while terminating the contract on account of breach of Conditions of Contract, the respondents cannot assess damages and power to assess damages is confined only to cases where breach is admitted. Herein the instant case, as alleged that the petitioner has not admitted any breach, therefore, damages levied are contrary to the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli, AIR 1987 SC 1359 , wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme that terms does not empower Govt. to adjudicate upon disputed question of breach Power to assess damages is confined only to cases where breach is admitted. 17. Further in support of his submissions that the writ petition involving disputed question of facts is maintainable, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme has observed that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts which require consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a in the exercise of its jurisdiction under 35 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but there is no absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil suit. It has even been held that in a writ petition, if the facts require, oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , wherein in Head Note 'C', the Hon'ble Supreme has held as under : "C. Constitution of India-Article 226 Maintainability-Alternative remedy/Exhaustion of remedies Nature of rule of-Existence of alternative statutory remedies, held is not a constitutional bar to High 's jurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction. Further held, the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three 1 contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged 5 Hence, where the show cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks under section 56(4) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was challenged by a writ petition on the grounds that the notice was wholly without jurisdiction, held, High erred in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage without examining that contention Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Ss. 56(4) and 2(1)(x) Notice under section 56(4)Writ petition against Maintainability Administrative Law Natural justice Notice Show cause notice Writ petition against Maintainability In limine dismissal of Whether justified." 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner also challenged the order blacklisting the petitioner Company and submits that notice is necessary prior o blacklisting the petitioner Company and the petitioner is entitled to be heard as held by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266 , wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme that placing name of person on blacklist-Person is entitled to be heard before his name is put on black list. 20. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travencore Ltd. and Another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 699 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme has held that deletion of name amounted to blacklisting affecting reputation of the contractor and so the affected contractor entitled to opportunity of being heard. 21. Learned AAG Mr. Vyas appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 raised objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the present matter being purely a contractual matter, the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He placed reliance on following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme : (i) Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994(6) SCC 651 (at PP 687-88) (ii) M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd., 1991(1) SCC 492 (para 27, page 506) . He placed reliance on following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme : (i) Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994(6) SCC 651 (at PP 687-88) (ii) M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd., 1991(1) SCC 492 (para 27, page 506) . (iii) Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors., 2000(2) SCC 617 (Para 7 at Page 623) . (iv) Center For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2000 (8) SCC 606 (Para 20, Page 621) . (v) Rammna Dayaram Shetti v. International Airport Authority, 1979(3) SCC 489 and (vi) Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, 1981(1) as SCC 568 . 22. He also referred the writ petition filed by the Nagarjun Construction Company concerning the tender process for Bisalpur Phase-II Project regarding water supply for Bisalpur Dam to Kishangarh, Kekri, Nasirabad etc. as also the writ petition of Essar Projects Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2006(3) WLC (Raj.) 299 concerning the contract regarding laying of drinking water pipeline from Chambal to Bharatpur, wherein this has held that in such matters Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. 23. Mr. Vyas also submitted that as per Clause 21 (Disputes) of Section III of the Conditions of Contract, the petitioners have alternative remedy by way of invoking Clause 21 of the General Conditions of Contract. As per Clause 21.1, all disputes arising in connection with the present Contract, and which cannot be amicably settled between the parties, shall be finally settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber to of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with said Rules. The Arbitration shall take place as shown in the Contract Data. 24. He submits that the efficacious alternative remedy is not availed by the petitioners, therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. It is also given out that the project in question is a time bound project and the same ,was stated to be completed within a period of 12 months and this project is being partly funded by the Govt. of India and a huge amount of public money is at stake. 25. It is also given out that the project in question is a time bound project and the same ,was stated to be completed within a period of 12 months and this project is being partly funded by the Govt. of India and a huge amount of public money is at stake. By entering into such frivolous litigation the petitioners are not only increasing the cost of the project but such hurdles in completing the project also paint gloomy picture of the State Government which inadvertently results in difficulty to get funding for similar projects in the future. 26. As per the work order the present project was to be completed by the petitioner Company within a period of 12 months from the date of issuance of the letter i.e. by 11.05.2005 but the same has not been completed within the stipulated period. It is also submitted that right from beginning the petitioner Company was not able to properly mobilise the site with proper equipments, skilled manpower and experienced staff. To complete this volume of work spread in different parts of Kota City, the petitioner Company was not able to mobilise the working groups timely and also parallely in all available work sites even when working drawings were available with them. This basic stuff is expected from a reputed engineering company like the petitioner. Most of the period out of the available 25 nos. working front, the petitioner Company had been able to take up the work area of around 4 to 5 places as is reflected from the daily progress report submitted by the petitioner Company. 27. Even after expiry of the stipulated completion period, the petitioner Company had submitted the survey report of proposed pipeline to be laid in part areas such as Kal Talab, Chawni, Teacher Colony, Kishorepura, Gayatri Vihar, Nayapura Jawahar Nagar Part-II, Sindhi Colony, Talwandi, Basant Vihar, Dadabari, J.K. Colony, Kherili Phatak, Vigyan Nagar, Anantapura Part-II etc. During time to time progress review meeting held at Project Implementation Unit, Kota (PIU) and Project Management Unit at Jaipur(PMU) and through various office correspondences, matter was conveyed to the petitioner Company, however, no serious and sincere efforts were initiated which could compensate the delay. During time to time progress review meeting held at Project Implementation Unit, Kota (PIU) and Project Management Unit at Jaipur(PMU) and through various office correspondences, matter was conveyed to the petitioner Company, however, no serious and sincere efforts were initiated which could compensate the delay. However, time extension of work was issued on provisional basis as per provision stipulated in the Contract Agreement of the work package and as requested by the petitioner Company, without prejudice to the right of the Government to recover the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Clause 43 of Section III and IV of the Contract Agreement. Time extension was also issued or provisional basis subject to the final extension by the competent authority with or without compensation. The show cause notice was issued on account of delay in executing the work and also issued reminders to the petitioner Company to execute the work within the scheduled time. 28. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as the judgments referred by the respective parties including the relevant clauses and Conditions of Contract. 29. In this writ petition the petitioner Company has mainly challenged -to the termination of contract and blacklisting the petitioner Company for further participation. 30. Firstly, I would like to deal with the termination of the contract vide impugned order dated 06.06.2007. Clause 52.1 of Section III of the Conditions of Contract empowered the Employer to terminate the contract if the other party causes a breach of contract. Further Clause 52.2 speaks about breaches of contract as the petitioner averred that delay was caused on the part of the respondent No. 1 and not on the pat of the petitioner Company and also raised objection whether provisions of Clause 45.4 before terminating the contract have been complied with or not? 31. As per Clause 45.4 of Section III of the Conditions of Contract, the requisite requirement is that if the Contractor is in breach of the Contract and the Employer has notified that he has breached to this effect. The respondents are able to show that before passing the impugned termination order dated 06.06.2007, notices were issued to the petitioner Company. 32. The respondents are able to show that before passing the impugned termination order dated 06.06.2007, notices were issued to the petitioner Company. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the termination of contract was on account of breach of conditions of contract and at the time of passing of the impugned termination order the respondents cannot assess damages as the petitioner is not admitted the breach, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthabhalli (Supra) that the power to assess damages is confined only to cases where breach is admitted. 33. I am not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. As evident by work order, as per notice to proceed the date of commencement of work was 12.05.2004 and within the stipulated period of 12 months the work should be completed. Admittedly, it is not completed till date, although the petitioner has alleged that delay caused in completion of the work was on account of the respondents and not on account of the petitioner Company. 34. The progress report itself shows that the petitioner Company is not capable to complete the entire work within the period of 12 months and to maintain the progress of work, notices and reminders were issued to the petitioner Company. Thus, it is wrong to say that clause 45.4(a) of Section III of the Conditions of Contract has not been complied with by the respondents 45 and this is clear violation of the contract agreement and the petitioner Company has breached the contract, therefore, the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli (supra), is not applicable to the instant case as the breach is apparent and may not be admitted by the petitioner Company. 35. 35. Now with regard to maintainability of the writ petition as the writ petition involves several disputed questions of facts, the petitioner has referred the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Others (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme has held s that existence of alternative statutory remedies is not a constitutional bar to High 's jurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction, meaning thereby such power should be sparingly used and further held that the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) to where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 36. Upon perusal of the aforesaid three conditions as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the aforementioned case, the present case does 15 not fall in any of the categories. 37. On the other hand the respondents have referred the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme in the cases of (i) Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra), (ii) M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd. (supra), (iii) AIR India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors. (supra) (iv) Center For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (Supra), (v) Rammna Dayaram Shetti v. International Airport Authority (supra), (vi) Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India (supra) and other judgments of this High including the judgment rendered by this in the case of Essar Projects Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra). 38. In all these cases, Hon'ble the Supreme has held that the writ petition is involving several disputed questions of facts and the remedy as provided under clause 21.1 of Section III of the Conditions of Contract and without availing alternative remedy as provided under the Conditions of Contract, the petitioner cannot file the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of termination dated 06.06.2007. 39. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme and this in the aforementioned cases, the present writ petition so far as challenge to the termination order dated 06.06.2007 is concerned, is not maintainable and the writ petition so far as challenging the termination of contract, deserves to be dismissed. 40. 40. In this writ petition the petitioner has also challenged the order of blacklisting the petitioner Company dated 07.06.2007. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order by which the petitioner Company has been black listed, it does not appear that before blacklisting the petitioner Company notice whatsoever has been issued to the petitioner Company or not? 41. It is also not revealed by bare perusal of the order impugned that liberty of being heard is provided to the petitioner company. As held in the case of M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (supra), a person is entitled to be heard before his name is put on black list and the similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travencore Ltd. and Another (supra) that the affected contractor is entitled to opportunity of being heard. 42. The respondents have not been able to make out their case that 1 before blacklisting the petitioner Company, any notice or opportunity of being heard is provided to the petitioner or not? 43. In the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as blacklisting the petitioner Company is concerned, the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 44. In view of the observations made herein above, the present writ petition is not maintainable against the impugned order of termination dated 06.06.2007 and as per the contract agreement the petitioner Company has got alternative remedy by way of invoking the provisions of Clause 21.1 of is Section III of the Conditions of Contract. 45. As the petitioner has raised several disputed questions of facts in this writ petition, therefore, the present matter being a contractual matter and as per the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme , this do not want to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, so far as challenge to the impugned termination order dated 06.06.2007 is concerned, this writ petition is herewith dismissed. 46. However, so far as challenge to the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 blacklisting the petitioner Company is concerned, since no notice and opportunity of being heard is provided to the petitioner Company, therefore, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme , the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. 47. 46. However, so far as challenge to the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 blacklisting the petitioner Company is concerned, since no notice and opportunity of being heard is provided to the petitioner Company, therefore, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme , the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. 47. In view of the observations made herein above, the present writ petition stands partly allowed.Writ Petition Allowed In Part As Above. *******