( 1 ) BY an order dated 10. 04. 2003, the Deputy General Manager (PJ) of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as iocl ) informed the petitioner (SPS Engineering Ltd) (hereinafter referred to as spsel ) that it had been decided to place it on the holiday list and to debar it from entering into any contract with IOCL for a period of three years w. e. f. 10. 04. 2003. The petitioner (SPSEL) seeks the quashing of this order on, inter alia, the grounds that the order was passed:-

A) without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to SPSEL and;

B) when the very basis for passing such an order was in dispute and was pending before an arbitrator.

( 2 ). The sequence of events leading to the passing of the order dated 10. 04. 2003 is as under:-

2. 1. SPSEL had been awarded the following two contracts with regard to the water system for the Paradip Refinery Project of IOCL at Paradip, orissa:- " (i) Infrastructure Works for (Part C) i. e. Supply and Installation of construction Water System and Drinking Water System for Paradip refinery Project of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Paradip (Orissa) Contract No. PJ/pdrp/pmc/cl/07 of 2000-01. (ii) Operation and Maintenance of Construction Water System and drinking Water System for Paradip Refinery Project of M/s Indian oil Corporation Ltd. at Paradip (Orissa)- Contract no. PJ/pdrp/pmc/cl/08 of 2000-01. "

2. 2. According to SPSEL, there was a slow-down in the works in May 2001 and the project was stalled in June, 2002. These events, according to the petitioner (SPSEL), occurred due to the locl s conduct. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of IOCL that the petitioner (SPSEL) was unable to complete the contracts and adopted dilatory tactics and did not show any seriousness in resuming the works despite repeated opportunities. This led to disputes amongst the parties. Ultimately, by a letter addressed by the General Manager of the Paradip Refinery Project of iocl to SPSEL, the aforesaid two contracts were, terminated on account of the alleged failures on the part of SPSEL as set out in detail in the letter. These disputes and the termination of the contract, as will become apparent from what is stated hereinbelow, are the subject matter of a pending arbitration.

2. 3 IOCL issued a show cause notice dated 17. 01. 2003 to the petitioner requiring it to show cause in writing within 15 days as to why it should not be placed on the "holiday List" and be debarred from entering into contracts with IOCL/be not de-listed from the list of approved vendors/contractors of IOCL for the following reasons, which had been elaborated in the locl s termination letter dated 29. 10. 2002: "1) Commitment of breach of Contract 2) Failure to perform the contract 3) Abandonment of Site/contract"

2. 4 To, this show cause notice dated 17. 01. 2003, the petitioner (SPSEL) submitted a reply on 18. 01. 2003 and denied that it had committed any breach of contract or that it had failed to perform the contract. It also denied that it had ever abandoned the site or the contract. In other words, all the purported reasons cited in the show cause notice for placing the petitioner (SPSEL) in the "holiday List" and from debarring it from entering into any contracts with IOCL, etc. , were categorically denied by the petitioner (SPSEL ). On the contrary, it was alleged in the reply that the contract could not be performed because IOCL had abandoned the same (which was what was allegedly reported in the newspapers also) in view of the conditions prevailing locally in Orissa where the project was undertaken by the IOCL. It was further alleged that in several newspapers it was notified to the public that a large number of projects had been shelved, including the Paradip Refinery Project of IOCL and that the same had been stalled on 25. 06. 2002. Accordingly, the petitioner alleged that the project had been abandoned by IOCL and not because of any failure on the part of the pet