IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.903 OF 2009 M/s.Lakhavi & Eskay Engineers (P) Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. .. Respondents Mr.S.C.Gupte, i/b. S.V.Kasar for petitioner Mr.S.O.Shukla i/b. Shukla & Associates for respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10th June 2009. P.C.: 1] We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. By consent of the Counsel for both sides, the petition itself is taken up for final hearing. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 25th March 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said order reads as under:- “Vide this office letter as referred above your contract has been terminated. In consequence of that your firm is blaklisted for a period of one year from the date of issue of this letter.” 3] The above order has been challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice. The letter can be dissected into two different facets, firstly that it terminates the contract which was for construction of OFC Spur Routes for GSM City Sites from Main Route/Exchange to sites. While the second is with regard to black listing of the petitioner for a period of one year from the date of issue of the letter. 4] A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner for termination of the contract to which he filed a reply. He was heard and the order of termination was passed. The order of termination has already been subjected to arbitration proceedings, invoked by the petitioner in accordance with Clause 30 of the Contract between the parties. As far as black listing is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that black listing is an independent action and causes severe prejudice to the rights and obligations of the petitioner, as the decision to terminate the contract and black list the petitioner has been taken without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 5] On the other hand the contention raised by the respondent is that the petitioner has already invoked the Arbitration Clause and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the black listing is mere consequence of the termination of the contract as stated in the impugned order. Once the termination is set aside by the competent court, the order of black listing would automatically come to an end. 6] Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, we are of the considered view that black listing is an independent action and it has different civil consequences on the rights and obligation of the party concerned and the petitioner should have been given opportunity in accordance with law. Merely because the petitioner may not have any defence to offer or his defence has already been considered by the Competent Authority without informing him of their intent to black list the petitioner per se, cannot be said to be a ground for holding non- compliance with the principles of natural justice. Similarly, the action cannot be supported on the ground that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. The only issue which should be taken into consideration by the Court while dealing with such cases is the adherence to the principle of Audi Alterem Partem. Of course invocation of the Arbitration clause by the petitioner is a matter which the Court should take into consideration while passing the order but the black listing is for a period of one year. Though, mainly based upon the termination of the contract, which has even been conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 7] In these circumstances, we dispose of this petition with a limited direction to the respondents that they would grant post decisional hearing to the petitioner in relation to the matter of black listing, issue it a show cause notice within one week from today and upon the petitioner being granted opportunity to file reply within two weeks thereafter an order should be passed within four weeks, therefrom. Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order passed based upon post decisional hearing. No costs. Learned Counsel for respondents prays for stay of this order. Since there is no stay of the termination of contract in the arbitration proceedings, the request of learned Counsel for stay is rejected. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)