JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.: - CM No.6331 of 2013 1. Replication is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Civil Miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CWP No.1430 of 2013 2. Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24.12.2012/7.1.2013, Annexure P.7, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for two years. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm which is doing the business of contractorship in the State of Punjab. Its office is situated at Dirba Mandi, District Sangrur, Punjab. The work of providing and laying 20 mm thick premix carpet on different roads in Parts I and II, Urban Estate, Patiala was allotted to the petitioner by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) vide allotment letter dated 19.10.2010. However, due to certain reasons including non availability of raw material on account of ban imposed by this Court on extraction of minor minerals from River beds or quarries, the petitioner failed to complete the contract work during the stipulated period. The extension sought by the petitioner was declined by the PUDA authorities and liquidated damages were imposed. The matter was referred to arbitration and Superintending Engineer of PUDA was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator gave his award on 14.5.2012, Annexure P.2 rejecting the claims raised by the petitioner. Against the award, the petitioner filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, “the Act”) before the court of District Judge, Patiala and the same are still pending. In the meantime, the respondent vide order dated 17.8.2012, Annexure P.4 blacklisted the petitioner for two years. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWP No.16653 of 2012. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. On 21.9.2012, the respondent produced a communication before this court stating that the order dated 17.8.2012 was withdrawn. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty was given to the respondent to take action in accordance with law. Now again vide impugned order dated 24.12.2012/7.1.2013, Annexure P.7, the petitioner has been blacklisted by the respondent. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty was given to the respondent to take action in accordance with law. Now again vide impugned order dated 24.12.2012/7.1.2013, Annexure P.7, the petitioner has been blacklisted by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the said action taken by the respondent amounts to double jeopardy. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court through the present petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never worked for Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (in short, “the PDA”) and the contract was awarded to it by the PUDA. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore PDA had no cause or justification for blacklisting the petitioner vide Annexure P.7. It was also submitted that contract of the petitioner was terminated for which on one hand, the respondent-authorities were claiming liquidated damages and on the other hand, had blacklisted the petitioner for two years. It was urged that the order whereby the petitioner had been blacklisted amounts to double jeopardy and is liable to be quashed. Elaborating further, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to perform terms of the contract which was not due to its fault. Infact it was due to non availability of the material that the petitioner could not abide by the terms of the agreement between the parties. In the end, it was contended that the period of blacklisting for two years was very harsh and in the facts and circumstances, the same required to be reduced. However, learned counsel for the respondent on the strength of pleas taken in the written statement justified the action for blacklisting the petitioner for two years. 6. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 7. Adverting to the issue whether the order Annexure P.7 blacklisting the petitioner, passed by PDA is within jurisdiction, few facts as available on record may be noticed. The allotment of work of providing and laying 20 mm thick premix carpet on different roads Part-I and II, Urban Estate, Patiala was given to the petitioner by PUDA. 7. Adverting to the issue whether the order Annexure P.7 blacklisting the petitioner, passed by PDA is within jurisdiction, few facts as available on record may be noticed. The allotment of work of providing and laying 20 mm thick premix carpet on different roads Part-I and II, Urban Estate, Patiala was given to the petitioner by PUDA. The work was required to be completed within six months from the date of allotment. In the event of failure to execute the work, no payment was to be released. The petitioner had failed to perform the work allotted to it by PUDA and the allotment of work to the petitioner was cancelled by PUDA vide letter dated 13.6.2011. The penalty of Rs.10,85,713/- was imposed upon the petitioner. The dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the arbitrator who gave his award. The assets and liabilities of PUDA were transferred to PDA within the jurisdiction of Patiala Development Authority vide Government of Punjab memo dated 8.12.2011. Thus, after the vesting of all assets and liabilities in PDA, the PDA had stepped into the shoes of PUDA and could validly and legally maintain and take all steps against the petitioner with respect to allotment which was made in favour of the petitioner by PUDA vide Annexure P.1. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, has no substance and is rejected. 8. Taking up the next contention relating to double jeopardy, the meaning of the aforesaid expression needs to be examined. The doctrine of double jeopardy means that a person must not be put in peril twice for the same act. In other words, no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause. However, wherever an act gives rise to action on criminal side and also for remedy before civil forum, this would not fall within the domain of double jeopardy unless there is any bar which has been created by law. The doctrine has no applicability where two different offences are constituted under different laws. The defaulter can be punished for both the defaults. 9. The doctrine has no applicability where two different offences are constituted under different laws. The defaulter can be punished for both the defaults. 9. The guiding ingredients for applicability of doctrine of double jeopardy had been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, (1961) 3 SCR 107 as under:- “.....if the offences were distinct there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy as embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution being applicable. It was the case where the accused were sought to be punished for the offence under Section 105, Insurance Act, after their trial and conviction for the offence under Section 409, Penal Code, this Court held that they were not sought to be punished for the same offence twice but for two distinct offences constituted or made up of different ingredients and therefore the bar of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was not applicable. This Court made it clear that the emphasis is not on the facts “alleged in the two complaints but rather on the ingredients which constitute the two offences with which a person is charged”. The ratio of the case is apparent from the following: “To operate as a bar the second prosecution and the consequential punishment thereunder, must be for ‘the same offence’. The crucial requirement therefore for attracting the Article is that the offences are the same, i.e., they should be identical. If, however, the two offences are distinct, then notwithstanding that the allegations of fact in the two complaints might be substantially similar, the benefit of the ban cannot be invoked. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse and compare not the allegations in the two complaints but the ingredients of the two offences and see whether their identity is made out.’ That the test to ascertain is whether two offences are the same and not the identity of the allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offences.” 10. Examining the factual matrix herein, a perusal of the order blacklisting the petitioner clearly shows that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner on 11.12.2012 through registered notice No.5398 dated 23.11.2012 which was received back with the remarks ‘Person is not available at this address’. Examining the factual matrix herein, a perusal of the order blacklisting the petitioner clearly shows that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner on 11.12.2012 through registered notice No.5398 dated 23.11.2012 which was received back with the remarks ‘Person is not available at this address’. Another opportunity was given vide letter dated 13.12.2012 but the petitioner failed to appear either in person or through any representative and did not submit any reply inspite of public notice dated 20.12.2012 having been published in Daily Ajit whereby one more opportunity was granted to the petitioner to appear in person on 24.12.2012 at 11 AM. The competent authority noticed that the builder was intentionally evading the hearing and had failed to complete the work which had resulted in financial loss to PDA. It was in view of the financial loss suffered by PDA due to failure of the petitioner to complete the work that petitioner was blacklisted for two years. The petitioner had faulted in performing its part of the agreement for which the arbitrator had rejected the claim of the petitioner and announced the award against it though objections under Section 34 of the Act had been filed. The petitioner was imposed penalty of Rs.10,85,713/- for failure to perform the terms of the agreement and blacklisted for violation of the agreement. In such circumstances, it could not be termed to be double jeopardy. Wherever a person is liable for two actions, the same would not necessarily fall within the ambit of double jeopardy. Further, the petitioner having failed to give any response to the show cause notice for blacklisting to the concerned authority, cannot at this stage challenge the same on the ground that the same was either harsh or unwarranted as no defence had been taken before the appropriate authority. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to justify that the action taken by the respondent for blacklisting the petitioner was either bad, illegal or unwarranted in the given facts and circumstances especially when the petitioner had failed to perform its part of the agreement. Consequently, we do not find any justification to interfere in the order blacklisting the petitioner. Furthermore, it was not shown that the period of two years in the facts and circumstances was harsh in any manner. Consequently, we do not find any justification to interfere in the order blacklisting the petitioner. Furthermore, it was not shown that the period of two years in the facts and circumstances was harsh in any manner. However, it is noticed that in case finally any finding is recorded in favour of the petitioner in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek review of order of blacklisting and any observation made herein shall not come in the way of the petitioner to apply for such review. 11. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.