JUDGMENT

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent, vide Ref. No. HQ/CAMM/CSR-Scholarship/14-15, dated September 13, 2019 (Annexure No. 1 to the present petition)

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to delete Petitioner No. 1's name from the list of blacklisted/banned companies posted on the Respondent's website.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company, while petitioner No. 2 is Director of Petitioner No. 1.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the banning order dated 13.09.2019 passed by O.N.G.C., which has the effect of blacklisting Petitioner No. 1 along with its allied concerns/ partners/associates/director for a period of two years w.e.f. 03.04.2019.

4. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. is a State owned enterprise of Government of India, registered under Companies Act, 1956. It operates under administrative control of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, therefore, it is an instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. Thus, it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Petitioner No. 1 was awarded a contract by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (in short ‘O.N.G.C.') for implementation of O.N.G.C. Scholarship Scheme by designing and processing through web portal with subsequent monitoring and renewal (OLA NO. 9030007250).An agreement was executed between petitioner No. 1 and O.N.G.C. on 21.04.2016.

6. The said contract however was terminated on 26.06.2018 on the ground of inappropriate execution of the contract by petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, on 13.09.2019, a banning order was passed against petitioner no. 1, whereby O.N.G.C. banned all business dealings with petitioner No. 1 along with its allied concerns, partners, associates or directors etc., for a period of two years.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the banning order, petitioners have approached this Court by means of present writ petition.

8. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, the writ petition would not be maintainable and the petitioners should be relegated to avail the remedy of arbitration.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that the banning order is challenged before this Court on the sole ground that it has been passed in abject disregard of Principles of Natural Justice. He further submits that in a case where there is failure of Principles of Natural Justice, then the aggrieved person can approach the High Court and the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy, including arbitration. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia & another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & others reported in 2003 (2) SCC 107. Para 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

“7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged. The present case attracts applicability of first two co