IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2007 (M/S) M/s Dayal Construction Company, 120/5 Tallital Bazar, District Nainital, through its Sole Proprietor Deen Dayal Bhatt. ShrI Deen Dayal Bhatt, S/O Late Shri D.N. Bhatt, 120/5, Tallital Bazaar, District Nainital. …… Petitioner. Versus Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, North II Kendriya Bhawan Sector H, Aliganj, Lucknow and two others. … Respondents. Sri D.S.Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Vashist, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Date June 25, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri D.S.Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashist, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the Union of India-respondents. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6- 12-1999 passed by the respondents annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, whereby the respondent no. 3- Executive Engineer Bareilly Central Division, CPWD, Bareilly, issued an Office Memorandum on 6-12-1999 to the effect that an amount of Rs. 3,60,861/- has become recoverable from M/s Dayal Construction Co. 120/5, Talli Tal Bazar, Nainital on account of compensation levied by the Superintending Engineer under Clause-2 of the agreement. The details of which have been mentioned in the impugned order. A copy of this memorandum/letter has been endorsed to as many as 108 different departments/authorities including the petitioner Company. It was requested that the said amount as mentioned in the letter if available may be withheld from the dues of M/s Dayal Construction Co. under intimation to this 2 office. In case nothing is due to the said contractor, a nil report may be sent. First contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a black listing of the petitioner company and second contention of the learned counsel is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before black listing. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri V.K.Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Bareilly Central Division, CPWD, Prem Nagar, Bareilly, it has been stated in paragraph no. 39 as under:- “39. That in reply to the contents of para no. 40 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner did not deposit the recovery amount even after six months of serving the notice as such respondents had no alternative but to circulate the recovery with the request for withholding the amount. The order dated 6.12.1999 does not any where mentioned the work like black listing or not awarding the work, which is segment of petitioner’s imagination.” I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record including the averments made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit along with its annexures. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is obvious that there is no mention of black listing or not awarding the work to the petitioner. Only the intimation was sent through the letter impugned (Annexure NO. 9) to different authorities for recovery of the amount in question, i.e. Rs.3,60,861/-, which was imposed by the respondent no.3 under clause 2 of the Agreement. It cannot be said to be blacklisting of the petitioner in view of the statement made in paragraph no. 39 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3 before this Court on 7-5-2006. 3 So far as the amount of recovery is concerned, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by it, the petitioner may avail civil remedy before appropriate Forum, because there are so many disputed questions of fact involved including the one whether there had been a fault on the part of the contractor or the Department. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to the dismissed. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5