JUDGMENT 1. - This matter has come up for arguments on stay application. However, since the controversy in the matter is within narrow compass both the parties agreed that the matter may be decided finally. 2. It is submitted by Shri R.K. Mathur learned counsel that respondent invited tenders and he was informed on 26.9.1989 that his tender has been accepted. He was further informed that he has to start his work on 30.9.1989 and finish the same by 29.9.90. It is submitted that on 4.10.1989 vide Annexure-3 he made an application to the respondent to get the site clear and also get the marks made where the road is to be constructed. It is submitted that the respondent wanted petitioner to execute an agreement even though he had not been able to start the work as the site was not clear and the markings on the site had not been made therefore he could not execute the agreement. Vide Annexure-6 dated 10.11.1989 Annexure-9 dated 15.12.1989 also he was asked by the respondent to start the work. He filed reply of the letter dated 27.12.1989 vide Annexure-11 dated 10.1.1990 that since the site is not yet given to him it will not be possible for him to start the work. However vide Annexure-10 dated January 4, 1990 he was informed by the respondent that since he has not complied with the orders mentioned above his earnest money is for fitted and that the firm of the petitioner is also debarred from taking the tender from Rajasthan Housing Board in future. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has right to obtain tender and fill the same and to get the work if his terms were found suitable to the respondent and in this way the provisions of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India have been infringed. 3. It is submitted by Shri G.C. Garg learned counsel that from Annexure-6, 7,8 and 9 it is clear that the respondent informed the petitioner from time to time that the site has been clear and he should start the work immediately. It was also mentioned that site was clear from the very beginning when the tender was accepted. Since he did not start the work therefore order annexure-10 was passed against him. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Chotey Lal Agrawal Vs. It was also mentioned that site was clear from the very beginning when the tender was accepted. Since he did not start the work therefore order annexure-10 was passed against him. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Chotey Lal Agrawal Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. (1981 WLN (UC) 97) in which the petitioner who was a contractor claimed security deposit which was forfeited on account of breach of contract. It was held by this Court that these are civil obligations and no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution tinder extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 4. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the documents filed by both the parties. 5. It was made clear at the time of admission itself on 23.7.1990 that the only point to be considered in this writ petition is whether the respondent has rightly debarred the petitioner from obtaining any further tender forms regarding the work as may be initiated by Rajasthan Housing Board from time to time. It had been made clear that no other pleas referred in the petition shall be considered. Therefore the matter in this petition is confined only to the extent of debarring petitioner from taking tender forms from the Rajasthan Housing Board in future. From the perusal of the various documents which were pointed out by both the parties it is evident that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner asking him why he should not be debarred from taking any tender forms from the respondent in future. It is needless to add that the primary requirement of principles of natural justice is that when any such action is taken the petitioner should be given an opportunity to explain his conduct and thereafter the respondent can always take decision as it may deem fit in accordance with law. 6. Since no such show cause notice was given to petitioner I am inclined to allow this writ petition on this count. The order Annexure-10 dated January 4, 1990 is therefore quashed and set aside to the extent by which the petitioner has been debarred from taking tender forms from the respondent in future. 6. Since no such show cause notice was given to petitioner I am inclined to allow this writ petition on this count. The order Annexure-10 dated January 4, 1990 is therefore quashed and set aside to the extent by which the petitioner has been debarred from taking tender forms from the respondent in future. However, it will be open to the respondent to give any fresh show cause notice to the petitioner to explain why he may not be debarred from obtaining any tender forms from Rajasthan Housing Board in future. The decision thereafter shall be taken in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is allowed as stated above.Petition partly allowed. *******