Order Heard the parties finally. 2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the contracted period, a letter dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure-3) has been issued debarring the petitioner from taking part in any other work of the respondents, which amounts to blacklisting without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submitted that slow progress of the work was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner, rather respondents themselves are responsible for the slow progress of work. He relied on 1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 699 (Southern Painters vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Another) and (1978)3 Supreme Court Cases 36 (Joseph Vilangandan vs. The Executive Engineer, (PWD), Ernakulam and Others). He further submitted that in spite of repeated requests, forest clearance has not been obtained by the respondents, which was one of the reasons apart from naxal activities etc. for not completing the work as per the schedule. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter-affidavit, submitted that the progress of the work has been very slow since the beginning which would be clear from the monthly progress report. He further submitted that the Impugned order was passed during the monthly appraisal of the progress, saying that till the pending work is completed by about 89 contractors including the petitioner, they will be debarred from taking part. In the tender issued by the respondents and only after completion of the work, the name of the contractor will be removed from the list of contractors attached with the impugned order. He further submitted that the purported explanations are no grounds for challenging the impugned order. He further submitted that in the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 4. It appears that the progress and completion of the work under the scheme i.e. the Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yozna is required to be done as per the schedule though there is provision for extension of time. It further appears that during the monthly appraisal of the progress of work. 4. It appears that the progress and completion of the work under the scheme i.e. the Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yozna is required to be done as per the schedule though there is provision for extension of time. It further appears that during the monthly appraisal of the progress of work. it was found that the work under several scheme entrusted to about 89 contractors including the petitioner was not progressing satisfactorily and therefore, the impugned decision was taken that-till the work is completed, the contractors named in the list will be debarred from taking part in any other tender issued by the respondents. It is also said in the said letter that after the work is completed, the name of the contractor from the said list will be removed. In other words, the order of debarring 89 contractors including the petitioner, from participating in tenders issued under the respondents is subject to completion of work. 5. In the writ petition, it was generally stated that the petitioner is not at fault for not completing the work in time, but in the rejoinder filed today, the petitioner has tried to develop its case by saying that in spite of repeated requests, the department has not obtained forest clearance and therefore, there is delay in completion of work. It may be noted here that no document in support of such statement has been annexed with the rejoinder. In any event, it is a case where according to the respondents, the work's progress of 89 contractors, including the petitioner is very slow and not in terms of the contract, whereas according to the petitioner, he is not at fault for, slow progress of the work, rather the department is responsible for the same. Thus, there is allegation and counter allegation between the parties with regard to the progress of the work. 6. The judgments relied by Mr. Prasad is of no help to the petitioner. In the case of Southern Painters (supra), it was inter alia held that deletion of name of the contractor, amounted to blacklisting, and therefore, the contractor was entitled to opportunity of hearing. 6. The judgments relied by Mr. Prasad is of no help to the petitioner. In the case of Southern Painters (supra), it was inter alia held that deletion of name of the contractor, amounted to blacklisting, and therefore, the contractor was entitled to opportunity of hearing. In the case d Joseph Vilangandan (supra), it was inter alia held that the notice was not clear, that action to debar the contractor, from taking part in future tender of the department, was in contemplation, and thus there was a necessity of giving opportunity of hearing, if such action was contemplated. But here in this case, the debarring is till the petitioner and the other 88 contractors complete the work. It appears that the progress of large number of work is unsatisfactory including the work in question. The petitioner has entered into contract with eyes open. This court cannot and should not examine the allegations, explanations and counter allegations in non-statutory contractual matters, in which the scope of judicial review is very limited. 7. There is no arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the respondents. The respondents are justified in saying to the contractors, that till they complete the work, they will not be entitled to take further work from the respondents. Moreover, in my opinion, the impugned order has been passed in public interest and it does not call for interference by this court in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.