IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1296 of 2010. M.K. Jindal, S/O Jagdish Prashad R/O 41, MDDA Colony, Chander Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority through its Secretary, 12-A Pritam Road, Dehradun. 2. Executive Engineer, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, 12-A Pritam Road, Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date November 24, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage today. Learned counsel for the respondents files counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29- 6-2010 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner was black listed and the amount of Rs. 3,96,962/- pertaining to remaining undone and damaged work was to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. In reply, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1-M.D.D.A. and it is stated in the counter affidavit that there is an arbitration clause which provides that if any dispute arises out of the contract, the same shall be referred to the arbitrator, as per clause no. 34 of the agreement, which has been annexed along with the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted this fact that there is an arbitration clause and so far as the recovery of the 2 amount in question is concerned, the petitioner may be relegated to invoke the arbitration clause. But so far as the placing of the petitioner in black-list is concerned, this aspect is not covered by the arbitration clause. I have perused arbitration clause no. 34 of the agreement, which covers the disputes arising from the execution of works under the agreement. A composite notice was issued to the petitioner to cancel the registration of the petitioner and to blacklist him on the ground that the repairs have not been made good by the contractor. In the latter part of the impugned order, the Secretary of the respondent no. 1 had already directed to recover amount of Rs. 3,96,962/- for not repairing the damaged work, therefore, two penalties cannot be imposed at the same time without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. So far as the recovery part of the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner may invoke the arbitration clause under the agreement. The other part of the order whereby the petitioner has been black-listed without giving opportunity of hearing is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondent no. 1 to issue a notice afresh to the petitioner, if any other ground exists for blacklisting the petitioner apart from the ground, which is mentioned in the impugned order. The writ petition is partly allowed. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP