JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The petitioner-Company, which has been a vendor for Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), is aggrieved by the action of the IOCL in including the petitioner-Company in the “Holiday List” thereby disabling the petitioner from entering into any contract with the IOCL. 2. The petitioner has been a vendor of the 1st respondent-IOCL on Pan India basis, in its Refineries, Terminals, Bottling Plants and State Offices and Retail Outlets. The petitioner states that they have completed contracts worth more than Rs. 100 Crores Pan India, with the IOCL. The petitioner entered into Exts.P3 and P4 contracts dated 16.06.2018 and 15.10.2018 respectively, for the work “Replacement of Non-LED bulbs with LED lights on canopy and Yard lights and allied works at ROs under Trivandrum and Kozhikode Divisional Office of Kerala State.” The petitioner was given Ext.P5 Work Order dated 27.07.2018 and Ext.P6 Work Order dated 03.10.2018. An identical work was awarded to the petitioner in Kochi Divisional Office, which the petitioner has completed successfully. 3. The petitioner states that on getting Work Orders, the petitioner started the work with all its resources, but due to labour issues and heavy rains and floods, the work could not be proceeded with, as per the agreed schedule. To complicate the work further, the luminaries delivered were not in tune with the requirements in the site. The number of lights required as per the contract was not based on spectrum, blind spot, band width, etc. The issues were communicated to the respondents promptly. The petitioner, still, completed substantial work in Trivandrum Division. The respondents delayed payments alleging slow pace of work. This also affected the progress of work. 4. Nationwide Lockdown was imposed in March, 2020. Immediately on lifting the Lockdown, the petitioner sent Ext.P14 mail to Trivandrum RO giving status of the completed work and explaining the difficulty in carrying out further work including approvals. The Third Party Inspection (TPI) engaged by the respondents expressed satisfaction over the completed works. But, the respondents withheld payments unreasonably. The petitioner states that out of the Bills raised, an amount of Rs. 64,59,682/- for Kozhikode DO and Rs. 71,66,728/- for Trivandrum DO still remain unpaid. 5. On 08.02.2021, the respondents issued Ext.P17 notice to the petitioner terminating the contract with Trivandrum DO. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before termination of the contract. The petitioner states that out of the Bills raised, an amount of Rs. 64,59,682/- for Kozhikode DO and Rs. 71,66,728/- for Trivandrum DO still remain unpaid. 5. On 08.02.2021, the respondents issued Ext.P17 notice to the petitioner terminating the contract with Trivandrum DO. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before termination of the contract. The termination occurred when the petitioner has been working on the project after lifting of lockdown restrictions. The petitioner therefore sent Ext.P18 communication dated 12.02.2021 requesting for a personal hearing. However, there was no reply to Ext.P18. On 13.04.2021, as per Ext.P19, the respondents terminated the work in respect of Kozhikode DO. 6. When the petitioner tried to resort to arbitration proceedings, the respondents took a stand, as per Ext.P20, that Clause 9 relating to Arbitration is deleted. The petitioner thereupon invoked conciliation remedy under Indian Oil Corporation Conciliation Rules, 2014. By Ext.P21 letter dated 11.08.2021, the respondents informed the petitioner that since the work remains incomplete, Conciliation is impermissible. Meanwhile, the respondents issued Ext.P22 show-cause notice dated 30.06.2021 proposing Holiday Listing of petitioner-Company. The petitioner gave Ext.P23 reply dated 12.07.2021. The respondents, however, placed the petitioner-Company in Holiday List for a period of one year, as per Ext.P1 order. 7. The petitioner states that Holiday Listing of the petitioner-Company is without even affording an opportunity of personal hearing and is in violation of conditions stipulated in Ext.P2. The petitioner has successfully completed works of the IOCL, for around Rs. 100 Crores throughout India. The delay in completion of the projects in Kozhikode and Trivandrum Divisions, were for no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner had apprised the respondents on factual situations, but the respondents took an inimical attitude. 8. The respondents deliberately delayed payment on bills. The works were executed in the presence of TPI. Even when TPI certified the completed works, the respondents turned around and even demanded demolition of certain civil works at Trivandrum, unreasonably. After approval of the work by TPI, the respondents were not justified in declining to make payments. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if a contractor is to be visited with punitive measure of blacklisting on account of an allegation that he has committed a breach of contract, the nature of his contract must be so deviant or abhorrent so as to warrant such a punitive measure. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if a contractor is to be visited with punitive measure of blacklisting on account of an allegation that he has committed a breach of contract, the nature of his contract must be so deviant or abhorrent so as to warrant such a punitive measure. The mere allegation of breach of contract or obligation that is disputed, per se, does not invite any such punitive action. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P1 order including the petitioner in Holiday List, is highly arbitrary and legally unsustainable, contended the petitioner. 9. The respondents contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondents stated that the contracts were terminated on account of the repeated delays and failure in performance by the petitioner, despite assurances given to the Company. The justifications advanced by the petitioner for the delay were inadequate and frivolous. Before issuing Ext.P1, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The reply given by the petitioner was considered before passing the order. 10. Grant of personal hearing is not mandatory. Denial of personal hearing will not violate principles of natural justice. Admittedly, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner and the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered before passing Ext.P1 order. The respondents stated that they have not engaged a TPI for the work in question. The commitments given by the petitioner in respect of completion of the contract, were not honoured. 11. The respondents further stated that whenever clarifications were sought by the petitioner, those were promptly provided. Therefore, the delay in work is not due to any lack of providing clarification. The petitioner ought to have started the work and completed the same by 18.02.2019 and 19.04.2019. The Covid-19 lockdown was imposed only in March, 2020. The petitioner moved to resume the work only after receiving show-cause notice dated 16.10.2020. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and is liable to be dismissed, contended the respondents. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 13. The petitioner-Company has averred in the writ petition that they have undertaken works of the 1st respondent involving more than Rs. 100 Crores and have completed such work successfully. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 13. The petitioner-Company has averred in the writ petition that they have undertaken works of the 1st respondent involving more than Rs. 100 Crores and have completed such work successfully. The claim is not seriously disputed, though it has been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents “for want of knowledge.” Along with the works in Trivandrum Division and Kozhikode Division, the petitioner had undertaken similar work in Kochi Division, which has been successfully completed and is awaiting settlement of bills. 14. The works in Trivandrum Division had to be commenced on 01.11.2018 and had to be completed by 18.02.2019. As regards the work in Kozhikode Division, the work commencement order was issued on 04.01.2019 and the date of completion was 29.04.2019. Show-cause notice of termination was issued by the respondents on 16.10.2020 and 16.11.2020. The petitioner replied that the works could not be completed due to rains and floods and Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner had to spend considerable time for fetching approval from the TPI. 15. The respondents concluded that the rainy season in Kerala is from June to September and the petitioner ought to have completed the work before that even according to the contractual requirements. As regards delay in approvals, the respondents stated that arranging Third Party Inspection (by the agency empanelled by the respondents) is the responsibility of the petitioner, as per terms of contract. The Work Orders were terminated as per Exts.P17 and P19 on 08.02.2021 and 13.04.2021 respectively. Though the petitioner submitted requests to cancel the termination of contracts, the requests were not acceded to. 16. The respondents issued Ext.P22 Show-cause Notice dated 30.06.2021 proposing to include the petitioner in Holiday List. The petitioner submitted detailed reply as per Ext.P23. The petitioner sought an opportunity of hearing. The respondents, however, rejected the reply submitted by the petitioner and decided to include the petitioner in Holiday List, as per Ext.P1 order dated 17.08.2021. Apart from arguments based on the facts of the case, the counsel for the petitioner urged that there was a complete violation of the principles of natural justice and that had the petitioner been given an opportunity of personal hearing, the Holiday Listing could have been averted. Apart from arguments based on the facts of the case, the counsel for the petitioner urged that there was a complete violation of the principles of natural justice and that had the petitioner been given an opportunity of personal hearing, the Holiday Listing could have been averted. The Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would argue that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, a personal hearing is not mandatory for Holiday Listing a Company. 17. After examining Ext.P23 reply given by the petitioner and Ext.P1 order of the respondents, this Court finds that the respondents have decided the issue on a very casual and mechanical manner without applying mind properly. In Ext.P23, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been working with the 1st respondent-Corporation on a Pan India basis for a long period and had completed such works satisfactorily. This would include an identical work in Kochi Division. This is an important factor to be considered while taking the extreme step of Blacklisting/Holiday Listing of any entity. The respondents have not adverted to this factor at all. 18. The petitioner had stated that the work could not be completed during the initial time granted due to heavy rains and labour issues. The respondents have rejected this contention stating that nevertheless the petitioner ought to have completed the work. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the rainy season in Kerala is from June to September and the contractual period of work was prior to the season. It is a fact known to all that in the years 2018 and 2019, Kerala has been witnessing unprecedented rains and flood disasters. The fact being so, as the Principal/Employer, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the issue in a pragmatic manner. 19. The petitioner had stated that the delay was attributable to the delay in getting clearance from the TPI. The TPI is an agency and Management Consultant, engaged by the respondents. This reason has been simply brushed aside in Ext.P1 order stating that approval by TPI is a part of the contract and the petitioner ought to have moved in advance. At the same time, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, state that the 1st respondent has not engaged the TPI in subject work. This reason has been simply brushed aside in Ext.P1 order stating that approval by TPI is a part of the contract and the petitioner ought to have moved in advance. At the same time, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, state that the 1st respondent has not engaged the TPI in subject work. It is therefore evident that the respondents have not applied their mind in the manner required under the circumstances of the case, in respect of the delay in getting TPI approvals. 20. It was the specific case of the petitioner in Ext.P23 that certain officer in the Divisional Office has been withholding payment towards canopy lights supplied stating that clearance from State Office is necessary. This allegation has been rejected for the reason that the petitioner has not adduced any proof in this regard. This Court fails to understand as to what “proof” the petitioner could have possibly adduced in respect of the matter which could have been verified by the respondents from their own files. Had the petitioner been granted an opportunity of personal hearing, the petitioner could have adduced at least available oral evidence. Such an opportunity was not given. 21. Ext.P1 order has been passed in a very mechanical manner. The petitioner is a Company which has been doing business with the respondents for long years. According to the petitioner, they have successfully completed works of the 1st respondent worth more than Rs. 100 Crores across India. The petitioner has completed an identical work successfully in Kochi Division. The delay occurred in Trivandrum and Kozhikode Division and the respondents have terminated those contracts. The respondents are not amenable to neither conciliation nor arbitration, over the dispute. The 1st respondent is an instrumentality of the State. In the circumstances, the respondents ought to have taken a decision on Holiday Listing of petitioner-Company in a pragmatic manner and with due application of mind. Ext.P1 lacks both. 22. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P1 is therefore set aside.