ORDER : 1. The petitioner was awarded a transport contract for the year 2014-15 for transporting food grains to Fair Price Shops under the Public Distribution Scheme. It was cancelled on 15-7-2014 alleged to be for reasons of nonperformance. The earnest money of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs has been forfeited, and the petitioner blacklisted for two years. Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither was the cancellation of the contract justified nor was the order of blacklisting in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given a show cause notice as to why his name should not be put in the blacklist on 12-6-2014. He was required to reply within 7 days. The notice itself is stated to have been served on him beyond that period. The petitioner also sought to explain the lapses with regard to failure in effecting the supplies, which has not been considered by the respondents. 2. Counsel for the respondents submitted that time was of urgency in the nature of contract for supply of food grains to Fair Price Shops. The petitioner failed to adhere to the prescribed time schedules. The show-cause notice for blacklisting dated 12-6-2014 was served on the petitioner. He filed a reply on 16-7-2014, which was considered and not found acceptable. In any event there is an arbitration clause which he can invoke if he is aggrieved by termination of the agreement. 3. We have heard counsel for the parties. The issue regarding cancellation of the contract involves questions of facts with regard to who may have been at fault. There is an arbitration clause available. The petitioner had filed his reply on 16-7-2014. He acknowledged failure to supply food grains to PDS shops but sought to explain them, which has not been found acceptable by the respondents. Disputed questions of facts arising out of a contractual dispute falling in the private realm cannot be examined in a writ petition. We therefore decline to interfere with the termination of the contract. It shall be open for the petitioner to agitate his grievance regarding termination of the contract in accordance with law. 4. We are not satisfied that from the documents on record including the acknowledgment granted by the petitioner that the show-cause notice for blacklisting dated 12-6-2014 was served on him within time to enable a reply. It shall be open for the petitioner to agitate his grievance regarding termination of the contract in accordance with law. 4. We are not satisfied that from the documents on record including the acknowledgment granted by the petitioner that the show-cause notice for blacklisting dated 12-6-2014 was served on him within time to enable a reply. The reply of the petitioner dated 16-7-2014 was in respect of another show-cause notice restricted to termination of the contract only. 5. The rationale in law for requirement of a show-cause notice before blacklisting has also been noticed recently observing as follows in Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NOT of Delhi) (2014) 9 SCC 105 :-- "16..........The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural of justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as "civil death" of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts." 6. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 15-7-2014 only to the extent of blacklisting granting liberty to the respondents if they so wish to issue a fresh show-cause notice on that aspect to the petitioner after considering his reply and decide the issue in accordance with law. The writ petition is partly allowed.