$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23^rd April, 2026 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 51/2026 & I.A. 3569/2026 S P TELECOM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Udit Seth, Adv.

Mob: 9899495968 Email: office@sethlawchambers.com versus RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Singh, Adv., with Mr.

Ashok Singh Parmar, AM (Legal)

Mob: 9313649228 Email: asok69advocate@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking interim protection against the action of blacklisting vide Letter dated 24^th November, 2025, issued by the respondent, on the ground that the blacklisting was done without issuing a prior show cause notice. As per the said Letter, the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years, disallowing the petitioner to participate in the respondent’s future tenders in any region.

2. The parties entered into the Contract Agreement dated 04^th October, 2023, for maintenance of the optical fiber cable network in Viramgam- Gandhidham-Bhuj (HQ – Samkhyali) section of Ahmedabad, for a period of three years. The petitioner had performed the contract for about two and a half years.

3. As per the case put forth by the petitioner, in the remaining six months towards the end of the year 2024, frequent OFC damages occurred due to parallel third-party railway works. Despite the petitioner’s explanations and a joint inspection on 22^nd November, 2025 confirming deployment of manpower and equipment, the respondent terminated the contract and blacklisted the petitioner for a period of three years vide Termination Letter dated 24^th November, 2025, without issuing a prior show cause notice. Thus, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a notice ought to have been issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause, before any action for blacklisting could be taken by the respondent.

5. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that petitioner was maintaining fiber cables, and despite notice, work was not completed, on account of which, contract was terminated.

6. He submits that blacklisting has been done in terms of Clause 29 of Special Conditions of Contract between the parties, and since blacklisting is part of the clause stipulating termination, no separate show cause notice was required to be issued for blacklisting.

7. He further submits that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, he has taken instructions for referring the matter to arbitration, and accordingly, he submits that the matter can be referred to arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause in the Special Conditions of Contract, entered between the parties.

8. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, at the outset, this Court notes that there is a clear admission by the respondent that no notice, as such, stating that the respondent proposes to take action for blacklisting of the petitioner, has been issued by the respondent. The respondent has sought to justify the same on the ground that no separate notice for blacklisting was required, as the stipulation regarding blacklisting was incorporated in the clause which also stipulated regarding termination.

9. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to Clause 29 of Special Conditions of Contract entered between the parties, which is reproduced as under:

“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

10. Perusal of the aforesaid clause shows that the respondent has the authority to terminate the contract in case of default of the contractor and to debar the contractor from participating in the tender for the balance work.

11. However, merely on account of the fact that an authority is vested in respondent for terminating the contract or debarring a contractor, the same cannot mean that the Principles of Natural Justice are not to be followe