(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the 1st respondent's action of blacklisting/debarring it from tendering for contracts issued by respondent No. 1, an order setting aside the award of work to respondent No. 2 and a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to consider its bid.
(2.) This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to blacklisting. M/s Sunrise Integrated Facility Pvt. Ltd. (SIF Pvt. Ltd.) is a sister concern of the petitioner. The respondents contend that the directors of the petitioner and the directors of M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. are the same. We will assume that to be so.
(3.) M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 for providing staff relating to its food and beverage section at the hotels run by respondent No. 1. Disputes and differences arose between respondent No. 1 and M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 1 contended that M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. had failed to provide the required staff. By a notice dated 26.02.2016, respondent No. 1 called upon M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. to show cause why action ought not to be taken against it for the same as per the terms and conditions of the contract dated 30.10.2015. By a communication dated 10.05.2016, respondent No. 1 stated that M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. had failed to submit its reply and that instead it had submitted a letter dated 20.04.2016 stating that it was withdrawing from the tender/contract. Respondent No. 1, therefore, stated that M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. had committed a breach of the contract and, therefore, cancelled the contract with immediate effect and debarred M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. in respect of future tenders for a period of three years and forfeited the security deposit. M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. invoked the arbitration agreement. Respondent No. 1, however, contended that the disputes are not referable to arbitration, inter alia, on the ground that there are no disputes. M/s SIF Pvt. Ltd. has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement between itself and respondent No. 1. Admittedly, no application has been made for interim reliefs either under Section 9 or under Section 17 to stay the order of blacklisting.