ORDER 1. Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 3.10.2005, passed by respondent No.1, black listing the petitioner for a period of two years and restraining him from participating in further process of tendering for a period of two years. Further direction given in the impugned order for forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the petitioner is also impugned in this petition. 3. The petitioner claims to be a proprietary concern, a Government contractor and the general order supplier. It is stated that the petitioner was an authorized transporter of the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of supplying food grains to the rural areas of the State of M.P. and particularly in the district of Jabalpur. The petitioner had submitted his tender for the purpose of transportation and movement of food grains for the year 2005-2006. Tender of the petitioner was accepted and an agreement was entered into for the purpose of granting contract to the petitioner. While the petitioner was working in pursuance to the contract granted after fulfilling of the requirements including deposit of earnest money to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/-, a show cause notice Annexure P-3 was issued to the petitioner on 22.9.2005 by the General Manager (Transport), pointing out to the petitioner that his representative one Shri Gupta has misbehaved with the District Manager at Mandla and it was indicated that the work of the petitioner is not satisfactory, accordingly the petitioner was directed to show cause within a week. 4. According to the petitioner this letter was received by him on 27.9.2005 and seven days period would have been over only on 4.10.2005. In the meanwhile before period could be over the impugned order is passed on 3.10.2005 that also without granting proper opportunity to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure P-4 on 5.10.2005 but in the impugned order apart from the reasons indicated in the notice Annexure P-3, various other grounds are taken for cancelling the contract, inter alia contending that the contract of the petitioner is cancelled in an arbitrary manner, the earnest money is forfeited illegally and blacklisting of the petitioner without hearing him and without following the principles of natural justice is unsustainable, interference into the matter is sought for. 5. 5. Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner inviting my attention to Clauses 9.2 and 9.3 of the agreement in question, the manner in which the action is taken and the reasons indicated in the impugned order Annexure P-l emphasized that even though in the show cause notice Annexure P-3, the only ground indicated for black listing of the petitioner is misbehavior of his representative Shri Gupta, in the impugned order more than II reasons are given, which do not find part of the show cause notice inter alia contending that action taken in this manner being contrary to the principles of natural justice and the terms and conditions of the contract is unsustainable, petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. In support of his contention Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mis Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another [ AIR 1975 SC 266 ] and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Southern Painters v.Fertilizers @ Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another [ AIR 1994 SC 1277 ]. 6. The respondents have filed return and it is pointed out by them in the return that as the work of the petitioner during the subsistence of the contract was found to be unsatisfactory, he was not transporting the food grains properly, he was committing default as a result essential food items were not being supplied to remote areas, resulting in a consequential loss to the Government, as the Government was required to engage other contractor. It is stated that the contract is terminated by invoking the provisions of Clause 9.5 of Part-II of the agreement in question and as the action is taken for termination of the contract and forfeiture of earnest money in accordance to the terms and conditions of the contract, it is submitted that no case is made out for interference. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. From the records, it is clear that dual action is taken against the petitioner, the petitioner is black listed so also the earnest money forfeited. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. From the records, it is clear that dual action is taken against the petitioner, the petitioner is black listed so also the earnest money forfeited. So far as the black listing of the petitioner is concerned, the only reason indicated in the show cause notice Annexure P-3 for black listing the petitioner is the misbehaviour of his representative Shri Gupta on 1.9.2005 with the District Manager at Mandla. Even though the notice is issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-3, according to the petitioner he has received the same only on 27.9.2005 and even before he could submit his reply vide Annexure P-4, the impugned order is passed. In the order more than 11 reasons are given for taking action in the matter of black listing the petitioner, the reasons given in the impugned order do not form part of the grounds communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure P-3 for black listing him. That apart proper opportunity of hearing is not granted to the petitioner for the purpose of taking action for debarring him from participating in the tenders for a period of two years after blacklisting him. 9. In the case of M/s. Southern Painters (supra) and M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner, the principle laid down are that for even placing name of person in black list, person is entitled to be heard and the principles of natural justice required to be followed. In the present case apparently records indicate that the petitioner is not properly heard and the principles of natural justice is violated. In the show cause notice the reasons indicated in the impugned order are not mentioned and without communicating these reasons to the petitioner, the order of black listing is unsustainable. That apart when 7 days time was granted to the petitioner by passing the impugned order even before the period of 7 days was over was improper. In view of the matter there is much force in the contentions of Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that black listing of the petitioner is illegal, to that effect the claim of the petitioner is sustainable and has to be allowed. 10. In view of the matter there is much force in the contentions of Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that black listing of the petitioner is illegal, to that effect the claim of the petitioner is sustainable and has to be allowed. 10. As far as forfeiture of the earnest money and rescinding of the contract is concerned, the same is permissible under Clause 9.5 Part-II of the agreement in question. Agreement does not provide for any notice or opportunity of hearing before taking action for termination of the contract or for forfeiture of the earnest money. In the impugned order various grounds are raised by the respondents showing unsatisfactory performance with regard to work entrusted to the petitioner. The records indicate that the petitioner had not transported the food grains properly, adequate number of trucks were not provided for transportation and all these resulted in various complaints. Even though the petitioner has refuted the aforesaid and has tried to indicate that the work was satisfactory. The question as to whether the petitioner had performed his part of the contract or has committed default is a matter of inquiry, which requires recording of evidence and adjudication of disputed question of fact, resulting in cancellation of contract and forfeiture of earnest money. If disputed question of facts are involved and if no statutory provisions are found to be breached or violated interference in a writ petition is not permissible. In the present case the question of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner or otherwise is a question of facts adjudicating of which requires recording of evidence and inquiry into factual aspect of the matter, the said facts finding inquiry cannot be undertaken by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover Clause 14 of the agreement in question contains an arbitration clause and it is indicated under Clause 14.2 that any dispute arising out of execution of the contract, has to be decided by the arbitration in accordance to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. That being so, prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the order of cancellation of contract and direction for refunding of the earnest money cannot be granted or decided in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being so, prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the order of cancellation of contract and direction for refunding of the earnest money cannot be granted or decided in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, if so advised, may resort to the remedy of arbitration available for redressal of this grievance. 11. Accordingly this petition is allowed in part. The impugned order Annexure P-l dated 3.10.2005 so far as it directs for blacklisting of the petitioner is quashed. The remaining prayer made for refund of the earnest money and for setting aside the order of termination of the contract are rejected and liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 or under the Common Law for redressal of these grievances. 12. The petition stands allowed in part and disposed of with the aforesaid without any order so as to the cost. C.C. as per rules.