JUDGMENT 1. The delay has been sufficiently explained, and has not been opposed. 2. The delay condonation application is allowed, and the Special Appeal was heard. 3. This intra-Court Special Appeal arises out of an interim order dated 03.11.2014, by which learned Single Judge has stayed the impugned order dated 25.02.2014, whereby the respondent was debarred for a period of two years from working as an independent engineer in any of the projects in Rajasthan, in terms of the agreement dated 18.01.2012, by which the respondent (URS) was appointed as an independent engineer for upgradation/improvement and strengthening the work for development of two lane from Jaipur (NH-12) to Bhilwara (NH-79), via Malpura, Kekri, Mandal, to be implemented on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) Pattern for a pre-agreed concession period. 4. It was agreed upon between the parties that the Firm will provide a team for carrying out an inspection and supervision as independent engineer. The key personnels were required to be provided for the Project, with the condition that the number of personnels will not fall below 50%. 5. A notice was given to the respondent on 14.08.2013, stating that since the replacement of the URS key personnels under the Project, has reached 100%, and has exceeded the limit of 50% under Clause 4.5(V) of the agreement executed on 18.01.2012, an explanation may be furnished. 6. The respondent furnished the explanation stating that Col. Harinder Singh, who was replaced for Mr. A.P. Singh, had to resign his services on medical grounds, and that the respondent immediately notified on 14.06.2012, seeking to replace Mr. S.P. Ahuja in place of Col. Harinder Singh. 7. Learned Single Judge has found that the debarment, even temporarily, will exclude the petitioner-Firm from participating in any tender process across the country, and thus, relying on Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL and others, AIR 2014 SC 9 , wherein the Supreme Court has given the conditions on which the contractor should be debarred/blacklisted, even in the event of such a power being conferred under the contract, stayed the order to the extent of debarment. 8. We do not propose to interfere in the matter, firstly on the ground that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, which has been passed after hearing the parties, and the writ petition is still to be heard on merits. 8. We do not propose to interfere in the matter, firstly on the ground that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, which has been passed after hearing the parties, and the writ petition is still to be heard on merits. Secondly, in our view, the termination of the contract and debarment, are two different consequences, which may arise on the breach of contract. Whereas the termination of the contract is in the discretion of the party under an agreement, who seeks performance of any work, or service by the respondent, the debarment amounts to a penalty with civil consequences, for which there should be sufficient reasons available on the record, and for which, an opportunity should have been given to the other side. 9. In the present case, by a letter dated 14.08.2013, an opportunity was given to submit its explanation, and on which an explanation was submitted by the URS (respondent) on 12.09.2013. Prima-facie,we do not find anything in the explanation, by which it can be inferred that breach of the terms of the contract was intentional, or that it was by way of a negligence, for which the respondent did not take immediate steps. The replacement was provided as soon as possible, and in any case, the explanation given by the respondent is the subject matter of merits of the writ petition. 10. There is no illegality in the prima-facie satisfaction of learned Single Judge that the debarment was not justified to affect the business of the respondent-Company. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. 12. The Special Appeal is dismissed in limine.