The issue of blacklisting is a contractual matter and should be decided through arbitration.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner is in the business of providing various types of consultancy services, inter-alia, related to the field of civil engineering contracts. Respondent No.1 is a Government of India undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and established as a Special Purpose Vehicle by the Ministry of Railways, the same is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India. Respondent No.2 is the competent authority, who issued the impugned order dated 1st October, 2012. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are officers of the respondent No.1.

2. By this present petition, the petitioner inter alia, seeks relief for stay of operation of the impugned order dated 1st October, 2012 passed by the respondent No.2 authority against the petitioner.

3. It is averred by the petitioner that in view of arbitrable disputes having arisen between the parties with regard to contract having an arbitration clause, the respondents have bypassed the said procedure and proceeded to illegally issue the impugned order dated 1st October, 2012, banning the business of the petitioner and its allied/sister concerns and partners for five years with effect from 30th June, 2011.

4. The petitioner has admittedly issued notice dated 3rd October, 2012 invoking arbitration and nominating Justice G.T.Nanawati (Former Supreme Court Judge) as one of the arbitrators. The respondents have been called upon to nominate their arbitrator.

5. The brief facts for the purpose of deciding the present controversy are as under:

i) On 27th September, 2006 the respondents issued a letter of acceptance to the petitioner for the Project Management Consultancy for the construction of roadbed, major and minor bridges and installation of track in connection with the provision of third line in Bhatapara-Urkura Section in the State of Chhattisgarh, India. The respondents accepted the petitioner?s negotiable offer for a total price of `2,57,59,000/- under the PMC contract. The petitioner was supposed to supervise the construction of the roadbed, major and minor bridges, and installation of track signaling and electrical work in connection with the provision of third line in Bhatapara-Urkura Section (58.71 kms in the State of Chhattisgarh).

ii) A show-cause notice dated 18th November, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as first show-cause notice) was issued by the respondent No.1 alleging certain irregularities committed by the petitioner including raising allegations regarding “poor performance” of the petitioner. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why it should not be declared as a “Poor Performer” and debarred from all future contracts by the respondents.

iii) The petitioner sent the detailed reply to the show-cause notice vide letter dated 22nd December, 2009 denying all the allegations. By letter dated 26th January, 2010, respondent No.1, by referring to the show-cause notice dated 18th November, 2009 decided to declare the petitioner as a “poor performer” for a period of one year. The same was not challenged by the petitioner in Court.

iv) After the expiry of said period of one year, the respondent No.1 issued another show-cause notice dated 30th June, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as second show-cause notice) proposing to ban the petitioner from business dealing for 5 years on the basis of allegations, some of which are common in first show-cause notice. As per the case of the petitioner, the second show-cause notice amounted to double jeopardy as it was issued on the same cause of action and material/basis as the first show-cause notice.

v) The second show-cause notice was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5599/2011, titled as M/s SAI Consulting Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Project Manager, Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., Raipur and Another. The same was withdrawn for want of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner filed the same very petition in Chhattisgarh High Court and by order dated 11th August, 2011 passed in