ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order dated 11.12.2020 passed by Deputy General Manager HPCL whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted with forfeiture of security amount of Rs. 8 lacs. 2. Petitioner is a proprietorship concern having its registered office at Mhow Neemuch Road, Pipliamandi and engaged in the business of providing Tank Trucks (TT) to Oil Companies. 3. Respondent No.1 is a Government of Indian Enterprises comes within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 is a Deputy General Manager, who has passed the impugned order on behalf of respondent No.1. 4. On 5.7.2017, an NIT was published for engaging Truck Tankers for the work of road transportation of bulk white oil petroleum products like Motor Spirit, High-Speed Diesel or Branded Fuels from IOC Bangrod IRD to various retailers located within the State of Madhya Pradesh or outside. The petitioner submitted a bid and the same was accepted being the highest among other bidders. Thereafter letter of acceptance was issued on 12.12.2017 with the direction to complete the formalities of the contract within 15 days. The petitioner deposited security of Rs. 8 lacs in the form of a bank guarantee on 28.8.2018. 5. In pursuant to the work order, the petitioner provided two Tank Trucks out of eight. According to the petitioner, four Tank Trucks could not be released on time from contractual obligation from Indian Oil Corporation, therefore, offered in writing to the respondents to permit him to provide another four new Tank Trucks to fulfil its obligation under the agreement. The respondents did not give any reply to the aforesaid letter. Petitioner sent another letter dated 3.9.2019 that four trucks have yet not been released from Indian Oil Corporation, hence, willing to provide brand new Tank Trucks 12 KL and 20 KL capacity within 90 days but no response was given by the respondent. The petitioner has presumed that the providing of an additional Tank Trucks have been done away with by implied consent by the respondent. 6. The petitioner has presumed that the providing of an additional Tank Trucks have been done away with by implied consent by the respondent. 6. Respondent No.2 sent a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that as per the agreement you have agreed to ply 8 Tank Trucks regularly for loading at HPCL- Gangrod depot to transport petroleum products to the retail outlets as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 30.12.2017 which is valid up to 31.12.2022, since you have failed to provide the agreed quantity of Tank Trucks hence, you have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 30.12.2017, if you failed to submit sufficient cause, it would presume that you have no cause and further action would be initiated against you as per agreement and the Transport Discipline Guidelines. 7. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice and again on 2.2.2020 a show-cause notice was issued alleging that non-reporting of all the 8 Tank Trucks is an irregularity as per the Transport Agreement and the same falls under clause No. {8.2.2.2 (d)} of the Oil Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines which attracts the penalty of suspension of three months for the first instance and blacklisting of Tanker Truck on the second instance. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 24.2.2020 seeking permission to provide brand new 3 vehicles of 12 KL and 1 vehicle of 20 KL within 90 days. Since the reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, hence, in violations of the provisions of the Bulk Petroleum Products Road Transport Agreement respondents have passed the impugned order dated 11.12.2020. 8. In exercise of power under clause 17 of the transport agreement, the entire Tank Trucks of the petitioner have been blacklisted on an Industry basis followed by termination of contract blacklisting and forfeiture of a security deposit under clause No.8.2.2 TDG, hence, present petition before this Court. 9. Assailment of the impugned order inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was willing to fulfil the terms and conditions of the agreement by providing the requisite amount of Tank Trucks to the respondents under the agreement. 9. Assailment of the impugned order inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was willing to fulfil the terms and conditions of the agreement by providing the requisite amount of Tank Trucks to the respondents under the agreement. Since some of the Tank Trucks were already engaged with another Oil Company and were not released therefore, the petitioner offered new Tank Trucks to the respondent and such a reasonable offer ought to have been accepted by the respondents instead of imposing a penalty of blacklisting of the firm as well as the Tank Trucks with forfeiture of security amount. It is further submitted that the truck tankers belonging to the petitioner has been blacklisted for an indefinite period which is not permissible under the law. The petitioner has been permanently debarred to do business with other oil companies with all his Tank Trucks which is too harsh and excessive punishment as compared to the alleged violation of the agreement. 10. Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of blacklisting order of the respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable and a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the respondents have taken this drastic action of blacklisting after two years of so called breach which contradicts the Principle of Legitimate Expectations. In support of his contention that blacklisting for an indefinite period is not permissible, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by apex Court in the case of Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731 and prays for quashment of order. 11. The respondents have filed a return in order to justify their actions. It is submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable for want of alternate remedy by way of an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is further submitted that the validity of the period of agreement dated 30.12.2017 is w.e.f. 1.1.2018 to 31.12.2022. The agreement specifically provides the nature of irregularity and penalties thereof, like forfeiture of the security deposit, termination of agreement and blacklisting. The petitioner was obliged to provide Tank Trucks as per tender condition and LOA. Since there was a deficiency of six Tank Trucks, the petitioner is also not disputing. The agreement specifically provides the nature of irregularity and penalties thereof, like forfeiture of the security deposit, termination of agreement and blacklisting. The petitioner was obliged to provide Tank Trucks as per tender condition and LOA. Since there was a deficiency of six Tank Trucks, the petitioner is also not disputing. There was no logic in replacing Tank Trucks for which the details have already been given in the LAO. The respondents issued a letter dated 22.4.2019 informing the shortcomings of the petitioners followed show cause notice dated 2.1.2020 and 2.2.2020. Despite the issuance of aforesaid three notices, the petitioner did not provide the requisite number of TTs to the respondents. The Tank Trucks of the petitioner which were already engaged with Indian Oil Corporation have been quoted in the bid in order to secure this contract, therefore, the petitioner played fraud with the respondents, hence, the order of blacklisting has rightly been passed. The judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case, if no period of blacklisting is provided then, it shall be treated blacklisting for the period of two years. Shri Aniket Nair, learned counsel has argued in support of the action taken by the respondent and prays for dismissal of the petition for want of alternate remedy by way of arbitration. Appreciation and conclusion 12. Facts of the case are not disputed, an agreement dated 30.12.2017 was executed between the petitioner and the respondents. A letter of acceptance dated 12.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner to submit a security deposit of Rs. 8 Lacs in the form of a demand draft or bank guarantee which shall be valid up to 30.06.2023. The petitioner has also been called upon to provide original documents of owned/ attached Tank Trucks offered in the tender for verification of viz. RC Book, calibration certificate, explosive license and fitness cate and photographs. The petitioner was also called upon to submit NOC from other Oil Companies for induction of Tank Trucks indicating that the Tank Trucks Offered in the bid documents is not engaged with other oil companies. The petitioner offered eight new Tank Trucks out of which five were owned by him and three were attached. An agreement was executed on 30.12.2017 which specifically provides an arbitration clause which is as under: 18. The petitioner offered eight new Tank Trucks out of which five were owned by him and three were attached. An agreement was executed on 30.12.2017 which specifically provides an arbitration clause which is as under: 18. Arbitration: All disputes and differences of whatsoever nature, whether existing or which shall at any time arise between the Parties hereto touching or concerning the agreement, meaning, operation or effect thereof or to the rights and liabilities of the Parties or arising out of or in relation thereto whether during or after completion of the contract or whether before after determination, foreclosure, termination or breach of the agreement(other than those in respect of which the decision of any person is, by the contract, expressed to be final and binding) shail, after written notice by either Party to the agreement to the other of them _ and to the Appointing Authority hereinafter mentioned, be referred for adjudication to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed as hereinafter provided. The appointing authority shall either herself act as the Sole Arbitrator or nominate some officer/retired officer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (referred to as owner or HPCL) or retired officer of any other Government Company in the Oil Sector of the rank of Ch. Manager & above or any retired officer of the Central Governmentnot below the rank of a Director, to act as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the Parties. The contractor/vendor shall not be entitled to raise any objection to the appointment of such personas the Sole Arbitrator on the ground that the said person is/was an officer and/or shareholder of the owner, another Govt. Company or the Central Government or that he/she has to deal or had dealt with the matter to which the contract relates or that in the course of his/her duties, he/she has/had expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. In the event of the Arbitrator to whom the matter is referred to, does not accept the appointment,or is unable or unwilling to act or resigns or vacates his office for any reasons whatsoever, the Appointing Authority aforesaid, shall nominate another person as aforesaid, to act as the Sole Arbitrator. Such another person nominated as the Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to proceed with the arbitration from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. Such another person nominated as the Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to proceed with the arbitration from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is expressly agreed between the Parties that no person other than the Appointing Authority or a person nominated by the Appointing Authority as aforesaid, shall act as an Arbitrator. The failure on the part of the Appointing Authority to make an appointment on time shall only give rise to a right to a Contractor to get such an appointment made and not to have any other person appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The Award of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final a nd binding on the Parties to the Agreement. The work under the Contract shall, however, continue during the Arbitration proceedings, except in case of termination and no payment due or payable to the concerned Party shall be withheld (except to the extent disputed) on account of initiation, commencement or pendency of such proceedings. The Arbitrator may give a composite or separate Award (s) in respect of each dispute or difference referred to him and may also make interim award (s) if necessary. The fees of the Arbitrator and expenses of arbitration, if any, shall be borne equally by the Parties unless the Sole Arbitrator otherwise directs in his award with reasons. The lumpsumfees of the Arbitrator shall be Rs. 70,000/- per case for transportation contracts. Reasonable actual expenses for stenographer,etc. will be reimbursed. Fees shall be paid stagewise i.e. 25% on acceptance, 25% on completion of pleadings/documentation and balance 50% on receipt of award of the arbitrator. Subject to the aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules made there under,shall apply to the Arbitration proceedings under this Clause. The Contract shall be governed by and constructed according to the laws in force in India. The Parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Chennai for all purposes. The Arbitration shall be held at Chennai and conducted in English language. The Appointing Authority is the Functional Director** of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to provide six Tank Trucks to the respondents as they were already attached with Indian Oil Corporation from the date before issuance of NIT, date of issuance of letter of acceptance and agreement. The Appointing Authority is the Functional Director** of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to provide six Tank Trucks to the respondents as they were already attached with Indian Oil Corporation from the date before issuance of NIT, date of issuance of letter of acceptance and agreement. According to the petitioner instead of providing those trucks, he has offered new Tank Trucks to the respondents, but no response was given. The petitioner has signed the agreement with the respondents accepting the condition that any dispute that arises out of the contract shall be referred to the Arbitrator, therefore, this petition is liable to be as non-maintainable but there are no disputed facts between the parties. The petitioner has failed to provide the agreed number of Tank Trucks to the respondents as per the agreement hence he has violated the terms and conditions of the contract, hence rightly suffered the penalty. The Tank Trucks offered in the BID by the petitioner were already engaged with the other oil companies hence the petitioner was not in a position to provide them to the respondents. Even today the petitioner is not in a position to make a statement that all those Tank Trucks are available to him, and he can provide them to the respondents, hence the impugned action of the respondent does not call for interference in this writ petition. 14. The only issue which requires our consideration is whether the penalty of blacklisting can be imposed for an indefinite period. The answer is definitely negative. Clause 8.2.3 of NIT provides a period of blacklisting and according to which blacklisting for carriers and Tank Trucks shall be minimum of two years which may extend up to five year, the clause is reproduced below:- 8.2.3 Period of blacklisting The period of blacklisting for the carrier & TTs shall be minimum 2 years or as per the respective corporation’s assessment depending upon seriousness of the offence, but not exceeding 5 years. The TTs, on completion of Black listing period, can ply under the same contract in case the validity of contract exists and the company so desires. In case, the same TT is found to indulge in malpractice again (after completion of the first blacklisting period) second time blacklisting shall be of 5 years. The blacklisting of TTs shall be on Industry basis. In case, the same TT is found to indulge in malpractice again (after completion of the first blacklisting period) second time blacklisting shall be of 5 years. The blacklisting of TTs shall be on Industry basis. The respondents in para 12 in their return have submitted that the period of blacklisting is two years. Keeping in the facts and circumstances in totality, we find that the period of two years of blacklisting is minimum and sufficient, hence, the impugned order of blacklisting of the petitioner as well as of Tank Trucks shall be treated as for the period of two years. The impugned order is hereby modified to that extend. In view of the aforesaid, petition is partly allowed. No order as to cost.