JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure-P/13) whereby the respondents not only forfeited the performance guarantee amounting to Rs.1,91,020/- terminating the work order dated 14.2.2020 but also placed the petitioner/firm in the black list. 2. The said order has been criticized by the petitioner/firm mainly on the ground that it was fault on the part of the respondents not making payment in time and request of the petitioner/firm for making payment in time as per terms and conditions of the agreement has not been given any heed and arbitrarily terminated the work order, forfeited the performance guarantee and black listed the petitioner/firm that too without giving any notice to them. 3. The relevant facts are briefly stated herein to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties: (3.1) That the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing Consultation of Solid Waste Management having good reputation in the field. Respondent No.1/Corporation floated a tender in the month of October, 2019 for appointing the Independent Engineer (IE) for Solid Waste Management Project. The petitioner/firm has participated and being the successful participant awarded the tender for a period of 60 months as per the total tender value of Rs.1,10,10,000/-. The tender agreement is Annexure-P/2 containing terms and conditions. The respondent/Corporation appointed the petitioner/firm as an Independent Engineer for Implementation and Operation and Maintenance of Regional Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Project, door to door collection, Transportation, Processing in Regional Landfill for District Singrauli. (3.2) On 14.2.2020, the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, they started to complete the assigned work as per the contract. However, the respondent/Corporation failed to perform the Clause 6.3 (a) (i) of the agreement and not providing the payment of the work done on monthly basis. Clause 2.9.2(a) provides if the Corporation fails to pay the money due to Independent Engineer pursuant to agreement then the IE can terminate the said agreement with prior notice of 30 days to the Corporation. The petitioner/firm repeatedly requested for disbursement of outstanding dues of several running bills but the respondents never give any heed on the said request which compelled the petitioner to decide to terminate the said agreement by invoking Clause 2.9.2 of the agreement. The petitioner/firm repeatedly requested for disbursement of outstanding dues of several running bills but the respondents never give any heed on the said request which compelled the petitioner to decide to terminate the said agreement by invoking Clause 2.9.2 of the agreement. They wrote a letter on 10.12.2020 (Annexure-P/6) asking termination of contract. The respondent/Corporation thereafter acted arbitrarily pointing out the shortcomings on the work of the petitioner/firm and tried to justify their action for not making payment in time and asking the petitioner to withdraw their decision of terminating the contract. As per the petitioner the respondents thereafter malafidely issued a letter dated 21.10.2020 to them informing that on the site, only one employee was present and as such, they noticed no progress in the work and asked the petitioner to keep their employees present on the site for expediting the work. (3.3) In response to the said letter, the respondent/Corporation was informed by the petitioner that it was difficult for them to carryout the services of IE and further requested to get the agreement terminated. Despite that on 27.10.2020, the respondent/Corporation again issued a letter saying that a notice for contract was issued on 13.10.2020 one month in advance, but on 16.10.2020 petitioner/firm removed their employees from the site. It is also informed to the petitioner that if they have any difficulty then on 02.11.2020 they may come in the office of the respondents and submit their stand so that dispute could be resolved. Finally on 07.11.2020 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner/firm giving them last opportunity to complete the work otherwise contract would be terminated. (3.4) The petitioner/firm submitted their reply on the next date requesting further that they are not interested to carryout the contract further, therefore, their agreement would be terminated as per their request. (3.5) The respondents thereafter issued an order dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure-P/13) which is impugned in this petition whereby the work order dated 14.2.2020 was cancelled, the performance guarantee amounting to Rs.1,91,020/- has been forfeited and the petitioner/firm was placed in the black list. 4. The respondents filed their reply, denied the allegations made in the petition saying that it is the petitioner/firm which have not performed their work properly and did not deploy sufficient staff, resultantly, the Corporation work was suffering. 4. The respondents filed their reply, denied the allegations made in the petition saying that it is the petitioner/firm which have not performed their work properly and did not deploy sufficient staff, resultantly, the Corporation work was suffering. It is also submitted that there are several disputed facts involved in the case and as such the petition is not maintainable as proper remedy in the agreement itself availing the arbitration clause is available to the petitioner/firm, therefore, as per the respondents the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when they themselves made a request for terminating the contract as per the terms of the agreement assigning reasons as to why it became difficult for them to carryout the contract then there was no occasion for the respondents to issue an order black listing the petitioner/firm that too without giving any opportunity of hearing and even show-cause notice was not issued asking the petitioner/firm as to why they shall not be black listed. 6. Per contra, Shri Tiwari appearing for the respondents has relied upon the notice issued by them i.e. Annexure-P/12 and tried to justify that even otherwise the petitioner/firm may avail the remedy of arbitration clause which is a dispute resolving mechanism available under the agreement itself. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that so far as the other disputes are concerned, the petitioner/firm may avail the remedy of arbitration clause as provided under Clause-9 which deals with the mechanism of settling the dispute. But, so far as the order regarding black listing the petitioner/firm is concerned, such a dispute cannot be raised before the Arbitrator and even otherwise under the fact situation of this case, we find that the order of black listing of the petitioner/firm is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Not only this, but the said order of black listing is in violation of principle of natural justice and even mandatory requirement of law before putting a firm in the black list, has not been fulfilled. 8. The show-cause notice on which the respondents are placing reliance does not speak about any such intention of the respondents asking the petitioner/firm as to why they shall not be black listed in view of their failure to carryout the contract or violating the terms of the agreement. 9. 8. The show-cause notice on which the respondents are placing reliance does not speak about any such intention of the respondents asking the petitioner/firm as to why they shall not be black listed in view of their failure to carryout the contract or violating the terms of the agreement. 9. The Supreme Court repeatedly in a matter of black listing has very categorically laid down that the order of black listing suffers from civil consequence and the same cannot be done without giving any opportunity of hearing or issuing show-cause to the petitioner/firm concerned. 10. The Supreme Court in case of Joseph Vilangandan Vs. The Executive Engineer, Buildings & Roads (P.W.D.) Division reported in (1978) 3 SCC 36 , has very clearly laid down that opportunity before taking action of black listing is mandatory requirement. 11. Like wise in a case of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 and further in case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2014) SCC 105, the Supreme Court has laid down that the order of black listing carries civil consequence, therefore, the natural justice has to be followed. 12. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the respondents in regard to black listing of the petitioner/firm is contrary to law and is in violation of principle of natural justice. Consequently, the order of respondents for black listing the petitioner/firm for an indefinite period is also illegal. Since the respondents failed to justify as to how the petitioner/firm can be black listed, therefore, the order impugned is set aside. 13. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise other grievances. They are free to avail the remedy available to them under Clause-9 of the agreement. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside to the above extent. 14. With the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and disposed of.