THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23538 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was awarded the contract of revisioning and reclamation of operational wear parts in wire rod mill, by the 1st respondent. Work order was issued on 25-08-2008. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06-06-2009, alleging that it failed to proceed with the work, with due diligence, there is delay in execution of the work, and payment of wages to the labour, etc. Petitioner submitted its application on 18-06-2009. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 24-07-2009, not only terminating the contract, but also debarring the petitioner from entering into any future contracts with the organization, for a period of two years. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that though a detailed explanation was submitted, in response to the show cause notice, the 2nd respondent did not take the same into account. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the 2nd respondent made extensive reference to the show cause notice, and the contents thereof. A copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner is placed before this Court. It runs into five typed pages, and several contentions were urged in it, explaining every aspect of the matter. The consideration of the explanation is reflected only in one sentence, viz., “Para-3: Your letter ref.No.9 in response to our Show Cause Notice has been examined and found to be unsatisfactory”. This hardly constitutes an objective consideration of the matter, which has far-reaching consequences. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that there is a remedy of arbitration. A perusal of the relevant clause discloses that the remedy of arbitration is not available, for matters of this nature. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pass fresh orders, duly taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner, both as regards the termination of the contract, and the debarring of the petitioner from future contracts, with the organization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-11-2009. KO