The government/governmental authorities have the freedom to choose with whom to contract, subject to judicial review, and must act fairly and rationally without being arbitrary. The principles of natural justice require flexibility in providing opportunities for hearing and the recording of reasons for administrative actions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the communication dated 18th May, 2015 of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years therefrom.

2. Though the petition has been listed on several occasions but notice thereof has not been issued as yet. However, the counsel for the respondent IOC appears on advance notice.

3. It is not in dispute that the blacklisting is preceded by a show cause notice and a reply thereto by the petitioner and the impugned communication dated 18th May, 2015 states that after considering the reply, the proposal as contained in the show cause notice, of blacklisting the petitioner, had been confirmed.

4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is twofold. Firstly, it is contended that though show cause notice was given but no opportunity of hearing was given and secondly it is contended that the impugned communication is without any reasons.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has handed over a compilation of the following judgments in support of her contentions:-

(i) M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70;

(ii) Joseph Vilangandan vs. The Executive Engineer, (PWD), Ernakulam, (1978) 3 SCC 36;

(iii) Hari Om Gupta vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2016) SCC OnLine Del 282;

(iv) Mott Macdonald Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2016) SCC OnLine Del. 220;

(v) Trigen Electronics Private Limited vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, (2015) 221 DLT 512;

(vi) M/s. Brite Aricon (Consortium) vs. Airports Authority of India, (2013) 203 DLT 408.

But upon being asked to show from any of the said judgments, the need for a personal hearing or for giving reasons, is unable to point out the same though has pointed out the passages in the judgments providing that the order of blacklisting should be after giving an opportunity to represent. She has in addition also handed over a copy of the judgment in Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 where in the context of consumer forums, the law relating to the duty to record reasons was cited and discussed.

6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has relied upon Patel Engineering Limited vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257 in para 38 whereof in the context of blacklisting only, it has been held that there is no inviolable rule that a personal hearing of the affected party must precede every decision of the State and it was further held that it depends upon the context of each case. He has further contended that it is not as if the reply of the petitioner was not considered or the same was rejected whimsically. It is argued that in accordance with the policy of the respondent IOC, a three member Committee was constituted to consider the case of the petitioner for blacklisting and the Committee for detailed reasons running into as many as seven pages and copy of which is handed over in Court and taken on record, decided to so blacklist the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, in the reply to the show cause notice, met with only one of the eight reasons which were given in the show cause notice and had nothing to say with respect to the remaining seven reasons.

7. The counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has contended that the respondent, since the blacklisting order, has already initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner and the question of blacklisting of the petitioner also ought to have been referred to arbitration. Reference is made to my judgment in Prabhatam Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South Zone) New Delhi, MANU/DE/2674/2015 in this context.

8. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the recent dicta of the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2014) 9 SCC 105 and am for the reasons stated herein-below of the opinion that no case for interfering with the order of blacklisting of the petitioner is made out.

9. I