C.W.P. No.1987 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1987 of 2011 Date of Decision.30.09.2011 M/s Chopra Brothers, 316, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh through its proprietor Sh. I.P. Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation, G-9, Ali Yawar, Jan Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the Corporation states that the petitioner has sought for an arbitral resolution as regards his pleas for some amounts, which have been withheld. Since the dispute, which is the subject matter in the writ petition namely of blacklisting of the petitioner, that makes him ineligible to participate as an empanelled contractor emanates from the contract, which provides for an arbitral agreement, I am of the view that the issue of whether blacklisting was justified or not, would also be a subject of reference before the Arbitrator. The contention of the Corporation before me that the writ petition shall not be maintained in view of the petitioner's option for a reference to arbitral agreement, must be taken as disentitling the C.W.P. No.1987 of 2011 -2- Corporation to contend at any time before the Arbitrator that the subject matter before Court, cannot be adjudicated before the Arbitrator. The adjudication shall include the point which is brought before this Court and both parties will be debarred from taking any such objection regarding arbitability of the subject, which is raised in this writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Corporation is now making an empanellment of contractors, which is invariably for a period of three years and if the petitioner's name is not included, he will lose out the right for three years even if it turns out that the blacklisting was wrongly done. The petitioner's name shall be kept in a state of animated suspension till such period as and when the adjudication before the Arbitrator is complete. If the blacklisting is found to be bad, the petitioner will be entitled to a consideration for enpanellment. 3. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 30, 2011 Pankaj*