JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent Corporation. 2. Petitioner was under a transportation contract vide agreement dated 7th September, 2012, for transportation of Bulk POL products like MS/HSD by Tank Trucks from Tatanagar Depot to various retail dealers, customers and other locations of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The agreement was valid for a period of 5 years with effect from 1st July, 2012 (Annexure-1). By the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2016 (Annexure-8), the transportation contract has been terminated and all the tank trucks 13 in number have been blacklisted on Industry basis. Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court. 3. Annexure-5 is the show cause notice dated 13th May, 2016 preceding the order of termination and blacklisting. It is alleged therein that petitioner''s TT No. JH05BF4158 was loaded on 15th April, 2016 at Tatanager depot for supplying 12 KL HSD to M/s. Mahamaya Automobiles, Chianki (Palamu) vide Invoice no. 16000466AI11739. Just when the Tank Truck was about to leave the depot with Invoice & Locks in closed condition, on inspection by HPCL officials, variation was found in quantity in three compartments of TT in excess beyond the calibrated capacity. The said inspection was conducted in the presence of TT crew who also signed the inspection report. The inspection report is also extracted showing excess product filled in all three compartments. It was alleged that his TT crew had deliberately filled excess product in all three compartments and were trying to steal and take the product outside the depot. This was very a serious matter and major irregularity had been committed. Therefore, petitioner was alleged to have violated the various Clauses of Transport Agreement such as 3(c), 5(e), 8(i), 9(a), 9(b), 10(a), 14(b) 17(e) and (f). He has also violated Clause 2.2.2, 7.1, 7.6, 7.11, 8.2.1 and 8.2.1r of applicable Transport Discipline Guidelines. 4. In view of the irregularities found petitioner was asked to show cause as to why action as per Clause 8.2.2.16 of TGD including Clause 17(e) and 17(f) of Transportation Agreement be not taken against him. 5. Petitioner submitted his reply on 17th May, 2016 alleging false implication. He also took a stand that loading the product into the Tank Truck was the sole responsibility of employees of Respondent Corporation. 5. Petitioner submitted his reply on 17th May, 2016 alleging false implication. He also took a stand that loading the product into the Tank Truck was the sole responsibility of employees of Respondent Corporation. Having found his explanation unsatisfactory, the impugned order of termination of agreement and blacklisting of all Tank Trucks for two years on Industry basis with effect from 3rd June, 2016 has been imposed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is not preceded by proper show cause notice. Show cause notice refers to Clause 8.2.2.16 and violation of Clause 17(e) and (f) of Transportation Agreement, which do not conceive of termination of entire contract and also blacklisting. Show cause notice also fails to indicate the quantum of punishment proposed to be imposed if the petitioner did not satisfactorily met the grounds, on which the action was proposed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 and rendered in the case of Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 . He has also relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Nilofer Siddiqui and others reported in (2015) 16 SCC 125 in support of his submission that such unguided power to impose termination of contract itself is required to be read down in conformity with the tenets of fairness, reasonableness as such standard form contracts laid down by the State or its instrumentalities with unequal bargaining power operate excessively on the other party. The quoted clause 8.2.2.6 does not restrict the scope of the power and suffers from excessive delegation of power. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 643 that regardless of specific plea being raised, the court can entertain a pure question of law going to the very jurisdiction of the impugned action if the subordinate/delegated legislation is found to be ultra vires. Interference is therefore sought for in the impugned decision. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation submits that the charges are serious in nature. Interference is therefore sought for in the impugned decision. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation submits that the charges are serious in nature. They are also in the teeth of specific Clauses of Transportation Agreement and Transport Discipline Guidelines. The provisions of Clause 8.2.2.6 conceived of more serious infringement or misconduct where Respondent Corporation is entitled to terminate the contract of such an Agency and also blacklist it. Reference is also made to Clauses placed after clause 8.2.2.6 including Clause 8.2.3 which refers to the period of blacklisting. Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services (Supra) more specifically para 22 thereof. He submits that the show cause notice is required to follow two requirements. However, even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice but if it can clearly and safely be discerned from reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement. A wholesome reading of the relevant clauses referred to in the show cause notice and the kind of violation committed by the petitioner, gave a clear indication of the action proposed to be taken including quantum of punishment. The impugned decision therefore does not suffer from irrationality or test of judicial review to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, relevant material facts pleaded and documents. I have also gone through the impugned order. Clause 8.2.2.6 is a part of main Clause 8.2.2 enumerating penalties upon detection of malpractice/irregularities. It would be proper to quote provisions of Clause 8.2.2. in extenso. "8.2.2 Penalties upon detection of malpractice/irregularities The carrier shall attract penalties for the malpractice/irregularities as given below and the TT mentioned in the following instances shall be suspended/blacklisted along with TT crew. However, an investigation shall be conducted and if the malpractice/irregularity is established then penal actions stipulated as under shall be taken. Sr. in extenso. "8.2.2 Penalties upon detection of malpractice/irregularities The carrier shall attract penalties for the malpractice/irregularities as given below and the TT mentioned in the following instances shall be suspended/blacklisted along with TT crew. However, an investigation shall be conducted and if the malpractice/irregularity is established then penal actions stipulated as under shall be taken. Sr. No. Type of Malpractice/Irregularity NUMBER OF MALPRACTICE/IRREGULARITY FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 8.2.2.1 Not wearing seat belt while driving on road, over speeding, unauthorized stoppage en-route or driving vehicle without cleaner/helper, short delivery of product TT shall be suspended for one day TT shall be suspended for one week TT shall be suspended for one month TT shall be blacklisted on Industry basis 8.2.2.2 Non functioning of TT Fire Extinguisher, en-route switching off VMU, unauthorized delay, TT crew found in intoxicated state while on duty TT shall be suspended for one week TT shall be suspended for one month TT shall be blacklisted on industry basis 8.2.2.3 Unauthorized deviation from the standard route, in case of accident involving injury or damages to facilities at the work place TT shall be suspended for one month TT shall be suspended for three months TT shall be blacklisted on Industry basis 8.2.2.4 Polluting environment due to product spillage from tilting or leaky vehicles on road, in case of accident/unsafe driving TT shall be suspended for one month TT shall be blacklisted on Industry basis 8.2.2.5 Pilferage of product, TT not reaching destination, Fatal accident resulting in death at the work place, Irregularities under W&M Act. Tampering with standard fitting of TT including the sealing, security locks, security locking system, calibration, VMU or its fittings/fixtures, Unauthorized removal of VMU, Use of VMU on other vehicles Unauthorized use of TT for products other than the petroleum products, Entering into contract based on forged documents/false information, Entering into an agreement for the same TT with other oil companies, Not lodging FIR with the Police in case of accident, not informing/submitting accident report to the Oil Company abut the accident TT shall be blacklisted on Industry basis 8.2.2.6 Any act of the carrier/carrier's representative that may be harmful to the good name/image of the Oil Company, its' products or its services As decided by the company However, if the complicity of the carrier is detected in case of occurrence of any of above malpractice/irregularity or incident of malpractice/irregularity stipulating into blacklisting of second TT of the carrier (during the tenure of the contract), the whole contract comprising of all the TTs belonging to the concerned carrier shall be terminated and the concerned carrier & their all TTs shall be blacklisted on Industry basis." 10. Clause 17(e) and (f) of the agreement are also quoted hereunder which relates to grounds for termination of agreement . "17(e) Breach of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement by the Carrier. (f) If the Carrier commits or suffers to be committed any act which in the opinion of the Company whose decision shall be final, is prejudicial to the good name/image of the Company or its'' products or its services." 11. Bare perusal of the provisions of Clause 8.2.2 would show that sub clauses enumerated before Clause 8.2.2.6 relates to specific instance of violation and degree of punishment for such violation at successive instances. Clause 8.2.2.6 however refers to an act of carrier or his representative that may be harmful to the good name/image of Oil Company or its products or its services, penalty contemplated is to be decided by the company. Sub paragraph of Clause 8.2.2 quoted herein above indicates that in case instances of irregularities or malpractice of second Transport Tank Truck of the carrier is detected during tenure of the contract, the whole contract comprising of all TTS belonging to the concerned carrier shall be terminated and the concerned carrier and thus all TTs shall be blacklisted on Industry basis. 12. 12. The respondents do not dispute the contention of the petitioner that the allegations relate to excess filling of only one Tank Truck bearing no. TT No. JH05BF4158. No other instances of malpractice or irregularities by any other Tank Truck of the petitioner was alleged or proved. Clause 8.2.3 contemplates period of blacklisting for carrier and TTs for two years. Impugned notice refer to action contemplated under Clause 8.2.2.6. It does not refer to any proposed action of blacklisting either or the period for which such blacklisting is to be imposed. The violation was admittedly of the first instance and not repeated. In the absence of clear indication in the show cause notice, the petitioner could not have defended himself against the course of action and the penalty proposed to be inflicted upon him. As noted herein above the Clause 8.2.2.6 did not refer to the stipulated categories of punishment as were enumerated in other sub clause 8.2.2. By now, it has been well settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as held in the case of Gorkha Security Services (Supra) and Kulja Industries Ltd. (Supra) that purpose of show cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. It should fulfil two requirements (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to department necessitated an action (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. The salutary object behind such a requirement has been dealt with at Para21 of the report in the case of Gorkha Security Service (Supra), which is quoted hereunder: "21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations. detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action." 13. In the case of Kulja Industries Ltd.(Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Curt while dealing with a case of blacklisting has also held that blacklisting if taken by State or its instrumentalities would be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. The order should be reasonable, fair and proportionate to gravity of the offence and can be examinable by a writ court. A fair hearing to party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. Para 17 of the report contains the principles laid down in that regard and are quoted below. "17. That apart, the power to blacklist a contractor whether the contract be for supply of material or equipment or for the execution of any other work whatsoever is in our opinion inherent in the party allotting the contract. There is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor. That is because "blacklisting" simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach. Between two private parties the right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by any constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of private parties. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also ion the doctrine of proportionality. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also ion the doctrine of proportionality. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence is similarly examinable by a writ court." 14. Consideration of the aforesaid facts, provisions of the agreement and Transport Discipline Guidelines therefore do not leave any room of doubt that the show cause issued upon the petitioner did not conform to the essential requirements. The misconduct was the first instance on the part of the petitioner. The punishment imposed is for all 13 Tank Trucks deployed by the petitioner on Industry basis. It therefore definitely has serious and repercussion on all such business activities which the petitioner may have engaged with any other Oil Company in future. On account of the discussion made herein above and for the reasons recorded, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order of blacklisting suffers from serious error of law as no proper notice in the eye of law was issued for the petitioner to defend himself more particularly on the quantum of punishment. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order so far as it relates to blacklisting of petitioner is quashed. However, the issues relating to termination of contract, depends upon interpretation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the merits of the allegation which this Court in the facts and circumstances does not intend to comment upon leaving the petitioner to raise it in any appropriate forum or in an arbitration proceeding. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent as indicated herein above.