IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.12391 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Bahadur Transport Company. -----Petitioner Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2. --- ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 27.7.2009, Annexure P-12 and 30.7.2009, Annexure P-13, stopping the work allotted to the petitioner, forfeiting the security and blacklisting. 2. The petitioner gave its bid for transportation of bulk petroleum products in pursuance of Notice inviting tenders, Annexure P-1, issued in June, 2008. The work was allotted to it but later, the same was stopped. Show Cause Notice dated 2.7.2009, Annexure P-8, was issued, proposing to cancel the contract on the ground that Explosive Licence in respect of one of the trucks i.e. PB-03B-2154 appeared to be forged. The petitioner CWP No.12391 of 2009 filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No.9143 of 2009 which was disposed of on 6.7.2009 with a direction to the D.G.M. (Operation) to consider the view point of the petitioner and take a decision. Thereafter, the impugned orders have been passed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to state as to how the explosive licence, purporting to have been issued by the competent authority but which had not in fact been so issued was produced. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the impugned orders have been passed without any justification. Moreover, the petitioner has alternative remedy of going for arbitration in terms of the contract. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is too harsh. We cannot go into this question as scope of writ jurisdiction is confined to illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularities. The petitioner may, if so advised, approach the concerned authority. 6. It has also been submitted that no period has been specified for blacklisting the petitioner and such an order of indefinite duration could not be passed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that blacklisting of the petitioner will be for a period of one year w.e.f. 21.5.2009. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that blacklisting will be for one year from 21.5.2009 and the 2 CWP No.12391 of 2009 petitioner will be at liberty to take alternative remedies for any other relief in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 07, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3