JUDGMENT Honble R.A. Singh, J.—By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner’s company and the six truck tankers have been blacklisted. 2. The brief facts mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioner M/s Kesarwani Transport Company, Jaunpur carrying on the business with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for last 25 years since 1984-85 used to supply the truck tankers for transportation of oil products on fare as per the agreement. In Aug. 2008, the Indian Oil Company invited tenders for supply of truck tankers to transport the Oil products of Indian Oil Corporation by issuing a brochure containing terms and conditions. The petitioner also submitted his tender in response to the above invitation, which was accepted by the respondent No. 2 Indian Oil Corporation and letter of intent (work order) containing six truck tankers offered by the petitioner was issued in its favour on 17.11.2008 and the petitioner was asked to place the above truck tankers for physical verification and to execute an agreement within fifteen days from the date of issuance of letter of intent. Out of six truck tankers the petitioner could offer only five truck tankers for work order. Both the parties entered into an agreement as directed in the letter. The truck tanker No. U.P. 70G. 9955 being already attached with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. till the end of December 2008 could not be offered for work, hence the owner of the said truck tanker requested to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to exchange the same with the truck tanker No. U.P. 72E 9162 through Maa Vaishno Oil Carrier on 11.12.2008 as the said truck tanker No. U.P. 70 G. 9955 was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Maa Vaishno Oil Carrier, but to no avail. On 17.3.2009, the Chief Terminal Manager respondent No. 3 issued letter to the petitioner to this effect that the company committed breach of contract as per the Clause 5.1 and 5.3 in view of the fact that the above truck tanker was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporatin Ltd. and thus it would be treated a malpractice as per the Clause 8.1(d) and 8.1(e) of the Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines. The petitioner was also asked through the above letter to show cause within three days as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner as per the provisions of the Contract Agreement and Industry transport Discipline Guidelines. The petitioner submitted the reply to the above notice on 29.3.2009 explaining the reasons for not making the truck tanker No. U.P. 70 G. 9955 available on the date since the above truck tanker was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mugalsarai by December 2008. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. extended the period unilaterally and ultimately it was made available to the petitioner only in Ist week of Feb. 2009 and then it was attached with the respondent No. 2 for work and thus there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner further made another representation on 6.4.2009 about the late attachment of the above truck tanker, but the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order on 16.4.2009 blacklisting the petitioner and its above six truck tankers. The petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging the above order. 3. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have alleged in the counter affidavit that on 15.12.2008, a bulk petroleum products Road Transport Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the said agreement was to operate since 1.1.2009 as the work order was already issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.11.2008. The petitioner did not report for transportation work on 1.1.2009 and then the respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 3.1.2009 to the petitioner to explain the reasons within three days regarding non-reporting for transportation work. The respondent No. 2 came to know from the reliable sources that the said vehicle was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under the contract and the Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No. 2 enquired from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which replied informing that the said vehicle was engaged with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under an agreement during that period upto 13.1.2009. The respondents then sent final notice on 17.3.2009 about non-reporting of the said truck which was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and thus the petitioner committed breach of the contract as per the clause 5.1 and 5.3 of the agreement. The act of the petitioner amounts to malpractice as per the clause 8.1.d and 8.1.e. of the agreement. The respondents then sent final notice on 17.3.2009 about non-reporting of the said truck which was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and thus the petitioner committed breach of the contract as per the clause 5.1 and 5.3 of the agreement. The act of the petitioner amounts to malpractice as per the clause 8.1.d and 8.1.e. of the agreement. The matter was referred to Deputy General Manager (O) U.P. Lucknow and the committee found the case of the petitioner as case of gross violation of agreement and took decision to blacklist all the vehicles of the petitioner for which an agreement was entered into and the affidavits were submitted by the owner of the above vehicles as per the clause 8.3 of the agreement. The petitioner itself admitted that the truck tanker No. U.P. 70 G 9955 was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under the contract till end of December 2008 and the said truck tanker was working with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation till 13.1.2009. Thus the above truck tankers have been rightly blacklisted for breach of terms of agreement of the parties while their owners have filed wrong affidavits and thus this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard Shri M.D. Singh Sekhar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and Shri Vivek Chand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 on the whole matter at length. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. A perusal of the record goes to show that factual position as mentioned in the writ petition have been admitted on behalf of the respondents in their counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the following six truck tankers were engaged with the respondent No. 2 vide agreement dated 15.12.2008 read with letter of intent dated 17.11.2008 : 1. U.P. 70-L 9561 12KL 2. U.P.O-L 9882 12KL 3. U.P.78-T 0507 12KL 4. U.P.70-L 9955 12KL 5. U.P.70-L 9557 12KL 6. U.P.70-L 8238 12KL 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the following six truck tankers were engaged with the respondent No. 2 vide agreement dated 15.12.2008 read with letter of intent dated 17.11.2008 : 1. U.P. 70-L 9561 12KL 2. U.P.O-L 9882 12KL 3. U.P.78-T 0507 12KL 4. U.P.70-L 9955 12KL 5. U.P.70-L 9557 12KL 6. U.P.70-L 8238 12KL 5. The aforesaid six truck tankers were to be reported to Indian Oil Corporation respondent No. 2 on 1.1.2009 for physical verification and transportation of oil products, but due to non-availability of the truck tanker No. U.P. 70G 9955, all those truck tankers could not be sent for work in view of the letter of intent (work order) as above truck tanker No. U.P. 70 G 9955 was engaged with Bharat Petroleum Corporation during that period upto 15th December, 2008 and the period of engagement was extended by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation unilaterally due to which the said truck tankers could be made available to Indian Oil Corporation only in Feb 2009 and the same were attached to Indian Oil Corporation. This circumstance was explained by the petitioner through its reply dated 19.3.2009 and 6.4.2009 to the Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No. 2, while the petitioner was not aware of this fact prior to the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents because the said truck tanker belongs to one Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav who had engaged the said truck tanker with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. without knowledge of the petitioner as stated in para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav the owner of the above truck tanker had assured the availability of the said truck tanker on 1.1.2009. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted that the agreement took place between the parties on 15.12.2008 which was to operate since 1.1.2009 and the petitioner had to make all above six truck tankers available for physical verification and carrying out work order, but one truck tanker was made available in Feb. 2009. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted that the agreement took place between the parties on 15.12.2008 which was to operate since 1.1.2009 and the petitioner had to make all above six truck tankers available for physical verification and carrying out work order, but one truck tanker was made available in Feb. 2009. The respondents relying on the contents of the agreement entered into by the parties and also affidavits submitted by the petitioner and truck tanker owners, work order was issued on 30.12.2008 in favour of the petitioner, but the petitioner did not report for transportation work, as a result of which notice dated 3.1.2009 was issued to the petitioner in this regard asking to explain the reasons within three days, otherwise the respondents would be constrained to initiate action against the petitioner for breach of agreement. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that in view of the agreement dated 15.12.2008 read with letter of intent dated 17.11.2008 executed by the parties, the petitioner was bound to make available all six truck tankers as mentioned in the work order, available to the respondents for physical verification and transportation of petroleum products by 1.1.2009, but the petitioner failed to make those truck tankers available on the date fixed i.e. 1.1.2009. Moreover, it has been proved that truck tanker No. U.P. 70G 9955 was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. upto 13.1.2009, while in view of the above agreement and letter of intent, the said truck tanker was agreed to be engaged with Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No. 2 in the month of November and December 2008 and the owners of the above six truck tankers submitted their false affidavits. The notices were also issued by the respondents to the petitioner for non-performance of the contract, but to no avail. The petitioner also concealed and suppressed this fact that the above truck tanker was attached to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. upto 13.1.2009, which amounts the breach of agreement as per clause 5.1 and 5.3 of the Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines, a part of the agreement which can be reproduced as under : “5.1 Carrier having agreement with the Oil Company for a TT shall not enter into agreement with other company for the same TT. Carrier shall not enter into agreement with the Oil Company for the blacklisted TT. Carrier shall not enter into agreement with the Oil Company for the blacklisted TT. If it is subsequently proved that the carrier has entered into agreements with other Oil Company for the same TT then it shall be construed as malpractice and penal action would be taken against the carrier as outlined under clause No. 8. 5.3 Carrier shall not enter into agreement with the Oil Company by submitting forged documents/false information” 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the act of the petitioner should be treated as malpractice as per the clause 8.1.d and 8.1.e of Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines which is the part of the agreement executed between the parties and the same can be reproduced as under : “Malpractices shall also cover any of the following : 8.1.d. Entering into contract based on forged documents/false information. 8.1.e. Entering into an agreement for the same TT with other oil companies” 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that in case of second incidence of proven malpractice during the tenure of the contract of particular carrier’s TT’s, the whole agreement shall be liable to be terminated and all TT’s shall be blacklisted as provided in 8.1.1.c. as under : 8.1.1.c. Upon second incidence of the proven malpractice during the tenure of the contact of a particular carrier’s TT’s, the whole contract comprising all the TT’s belonging to the concerned carrier shall be terminated and the concerned carrier and their all TT’s shall be black listed on industry basis, even though, the complicity of the carrier is not proved during the investigations. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is a case of gross violation of terms and conditions of the agreement and also clear case of malpractice and thus the matter was referred to higher authorities for final decision and the committee constituted for this purpose found the case of the petitioner as the case of gross violation of agreement and thus the committee took decision to blacklist the petitioner’s company permanently as per the guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation and consequently the final order was passed to blacklist all the six vehicles of the petitioner as per the guidelines mentioned in 8.3 which can be reproduced as follows : 8.3 Penalties The transporters shall attract penalties for the undesirable actions as given below. The suspension/blacklisting of the TT mentioned in the following instances shall be alongwith TT crew. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the blacklisting of the petitioner’s all six truck tankers permanently is a serious action, but no notice to blacklist the company and its six Truck tankers has been served on the petitioner and thus the respondents have violated the principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 930 , Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (P.W.D.) Ernakulam and others wherein the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines : “Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purpose of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the black list.” 12. In the above case, there was no word in the notice dated 17.4.1968 which could give a clear intimation to the addressee that it was proposed to debar him from taking any contract, whatever, in future under the Department. The contractor was thus not afforded adequate opportunity to represent against the impugned action. The Apex Court has held that the disability created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction and thus the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on blacklist. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1277 , M/s Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows : “The deletion of the appellant’s name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were some vigilance report against it, could only be done consistent with and after the compliance of the principles of natural justice. That not having been done, it requires to be held that withholding of the tender form from the appellant was not justified. That not having been done, it requires to be held that withholding of the tender form from the appellant was not justified. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition.” 14. While deciding the above case, the Apex Court has relied on the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 620 para 4 wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows : “Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. Insofar as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle 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 blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order.” 15. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that this writ petition is not entertainable because the petitioner must have approached the respondents for referring the dispute to the arbitrator in view of clause 16 of the agreement which is reproduced below : “All questions, disputes and differences arising under or in relation to this Agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director (Marketing) of the Company. If such Director (Marketing) is unable or unshalling to act as the sole arbitrator, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitrator of some other officer of the Company by such Director (Marketing) in his place, who is shalling to act as such sole arbitrator. It is known to the parties herein that the Arbitrator appointed hereunder is an employee of the Company and may be Shareholder of the Company. It is known to the parties herein that the Arbitrator appointed hereunder is an employee of the Company and may be Shareholder of the Company. The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred, whether the Director (Marketing) or officer, as the case may be, on his being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason, the Director (Marketing) shall designate any other person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is also the term of this agreement that no person other than the Director (Marketing) or the person designated by the Director (Marketing) as aforesaid shall act as arbitrator. The award of the Arbitrator so appointed shall be final, conclusive and binding on all the parties to the Agreement and provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the Rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. The venue of the arbitration shall be Allahabad.” 16. We have gone through the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and found that no prior notice to blacklist the petitioner and its six Truck tankers as mentioned in the work order has been served before passing the impugned order while in view of the above judgments of the Apex Court, the notice to blacklist the petitioner and its six truck tankers should have been served so that the petitioner may represent its case before the respondents, though there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person but it is an implied principle of rule of law and natural justice that such notice should have been served on the petitioner so that it may represent its case for consideration of the respondents because blacklisting of the petitioner and its six truck tankers permanently is a very severe action in nature. 17. Consequently, the respondents have violated the principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order without serving any notice to blacklist the petitioner and its above six truck tankers. 17. Consequently, the respondents have violated the principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order without serving any notice to blacklist the petitioner and its above six truck tankers. We would have normally relegated the petitioner to the condition of para 16 of the agreement under which the petitioner should have approached the respondents to refer the dispute to the arbitrator for its decision, but in view of above violation of principle of natural justice the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It would be just and proper to pass an order to remit the matter to the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to serve a fresh notice on the petitioner so that the petitioner may represent its case for consideration and it may get an opportunity before any order is passed. 18. In view of the above discussions, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 16.4.2009 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). We further observe that the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 would be at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner shall represent its case for consideration. The respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 may pass a fresh order on the representation to be made by the petitioner. The parties shall bear their own costs. ———