ORDER 1. The petitioner was granted a contract by respondents No.1 and 2 for transportation of High Density Diesel from it's Rairu Depot to respondent No.3 M/s. Kanishka Auto Mobile Gohad, District Bhind. A written agreement was executed between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents No. 1 and 2 on the other hand on 7th April 2009. The said agreement is annexed as Annexure P/2 at page 15 of the Paper Book. 2. The petitioner had employed its Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 for lifting High Density Diesel from Rairu Depot of respondent No. 1 and 2 on 4th July 2010 and after lifting the same had unloaded the tanker at the retail out let of respondent No.3 on the same day. A surprise inspection was carried out by the inspection team of respondents No.1 and 2 at the petrol out let of respondent No.3 on 9th July 2010 and in the course of said inspection, samples of last load tank truck were drawn for testing, which were sent for testing to stationary laboratory on 12th July 2010. The samples drawn from the petrol out let of respondent No. 3 on analysis were found to be adulterated and a report in this regard was sent by the laboratory to respondents No. 1 and 2 on 30.7.2010. 3. Upon receiving the failure report of samples from the laboratory, respondents No.1 and 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 10.8.20 10 calling upon him to explain the reason of adulteration of diesel lifted from Rairu Depot on 4.7.2010 found to be adulterated. Reply to show cause notice was given by the petitioner on 20th August 2010, in which his defence was that he cannot be blamed for the adulteration as according to him, the adulteration was possible at the end of the dealer because the samples were lifted after five days of unloading of the tanker at the out let of respondent No.3. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 being not satisfied with the reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner, blacklisted petitioner's Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 employed in the transporation of lifting and unloading of diesel on 4.7.2010. Aggrieved by the said blacklisting, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking quashing of impugned order, by which his Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 was blacklisted for a period of two years. 5. Mr. Aggrieved by the said blacklisting, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking quashing of impugned order, by which his Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 was blacklisted for a period of two years. 5. Mr. Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the consideration to the reply of the petitioner by respondents No. 1 and 2 was not proper and according to him, the respondents No. 1 and 2 were not justified in blacklisted petitioner's Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 without holding a detailed enquiry regarding the time of alleged adulteration, whether adulteration in the diesel was before the Tank Truck in question was unloaded at the out let of respondent No.3 or at the end of dealer i.e. respondent No.3. 6. Mr. Harish Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has objected to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the dispute under the transportation agreement dated 7th April 2009 was required to be adjudicated by the arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause 18 contained in the said agreement. Mr. Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has no answer to this objection. However, he insists that since detailed enquiry was not held by respondents No.1 and 2 before blacklisting petitioner's Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538, he was not under an obligation to go to the arbitrator and can approach the Court straight way as the said action of respondents No. 1 and 2 is in violation of principle of natural justice. 7. Upon giving my anxious consideration to the above rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner's Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 was blacklisted by respondents No.1 and 2 as the samples lifted by the inspection team from the petrol out let of respondent No.3 pertained to the last unloading of diesel done by the petitioner through his said tanker. The petitioner's Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 was blacklisted by respondents No.1 and 2 as the samples lifted by the inspection team from the petrol out let of respondent No.3 pertained to the last unloading of diesel done by the petitioner through his said tanker. In case the petitioner apprehends that he was not responsible for the alleged adulteration and i according to him, the adulteration was at the end of the dealer i.e. respondent No.3, appropriate remedy for him was to have either tanen recourse to the arbitration clause contained in transportation agreement or to have filed a civil suit because the dispute on this account requires evidence as to whether adulteration had taken place at the end of the dealer or at the end of the transporter. Respondents No.1 and 2 were justified in blacklisting the petitioner's Tank Truck No. MP-047-GA-1538 if they have to maintain their goodwill to supply pure petroleum products to the consumers of these items. If upon evidence, the petitioner is able to establish that adulteration had taken place at the end of the dealer, then his remedies in Law of Torts to claim compensation for the impugned action of black listing of his tanker not only against the dealer, but also against respondents No.1 and 2. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case delineated hereinabove, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same is therefore dismissed.