respondent has issued notice dated 9.3.2009 asking the petitioner to proceed with the Work Order. The petitioner has not submitted any reply to the said notice nor had it carried out the repairs as directed. It is to be noted that if at all the petitioner has any grievance with the respondent in not executing work agreement, it could have submitted its explanation in response to the notice dated 9.3.2009 ventilating its grievance. As no explanation was received from the petitioner, the respondent again issued final notice dated 7.10.2009, to which also, the petitioner has not chosen to come forward with his explanation. In those circumstances, the respondent has blacklisted the petitioner-company for a period of three years and forfeited its security deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- within the domain of the contract settled between the parties. The inaction on the part of the petitioner in coming forward to execute the work order for a period of five months and submitting its explanation is nothing but deliberate and willful on the part of the petitioner, which cannot be countenanced in the public interest. No other valid grounds are raised before this Court assailing the impugned notice.
