JUDGMENT Per : M. S. Sonak, J. :- 1. Rule. With consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. In Writ Petition No.569 of 2013, the petitioner a registered Municipal contractor impugns the decision dated 14.2.2013 and Circular dated 16.3.2013, which according to the petitioner have the effect of 'black-listing' him until further orders. 3. In Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18/7/2013 issued by the Chief Engineer (Vigilance), rejecting, inter alia the petitioner's monetary claims, in respect of certain work alleged to have been completed by him. This order came to be passed in pursuance of the directions contained in the order dated 9.5.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.825 of 2012, to which reference shall be made in the course of this judgment. 4. The respondents-Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) claims to have unearthed a scam involving about 32 contractors, who in collusion with the officials of the MMC submitted and got released the bills towards sewerage and other engineering works, which in fact had not at all been carried out. In the course of preliminary probe, 17 contractors including the petitioner were suspected to be involved. Accordingly, pending further investigation, certain alleged outstanding bills concerning the petitioner came to be withheld. The petitioner and three other contractors, in substantially similar position, preferred Writ Petition Nos.825 of 2012, 886 of 2012, 887 of 2012 and 889 of 2012 before this Court, seeking an early settlement of their bills. These petitions came to be disposed of by an order dated 16.1.2013 acceding to the request of the petitioners that they be relegated before the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) of the MMC, who could examine their grievance and depending upon his decision, the petitioners would pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law. The Chief Engineer (Vigilance) of the MMC was directed to examine the grievance of the petitioners referred to in the said Writ Petitions and within a period of three months communicate his decision to the petitioners. 5. The Chief Engineer (Vigilance) of the MMC was directed to examine the grievance of the petitioners referred to in the said Writ Petitions and within a period of three months communicate his decision to the petitioners. 5. In the meanwhile, i.e., on 1st December, 2012, the petitioner had been issued show cause notice, wherein it was alleged as under:- (a) that the petitioner had claimed the payment for works which were not executed by him; (b) that the petitioner had failed to submit relevant records/documents to substantiate the claims made by him; (c) that the petitioner had falsely claimed payments alongwith other contractors and association of the contractors; (d) that the petitioner has violated the condition No.17 of Volume-I of tender documents by involving in corrupt and fraudulent practices and attempting to cheat the MMC; (a) why registration of the petitioner be not cancelled and the petitioner be not blacklisted from participating in MMC bids in future; (b) why the petitioners deposits with MMC should not be forfeited as per the terms of contract; (c) why the criminal complaint under sections 420 and 467 of the I.P.C., not be registered against the petitioner in addition to the charges framed by the Anti Corruption Bureau; The Show Cause Notice dated 1.12.2012, on basis of the aforesaid allegations, required the petitioner to show cause as to the following: 6. The petitioner submitted response dated 6.12.2012 to the show cause notice dated 1.12.2012. Therein, the petitioner denied all the allegations and offered to submit the documentary evidence/correspondence. The petitioner also demanded the release of the payments in respect of the alleged outstanding bills. 7. The Chief Engineer (SO), MMC vide letter dated 14.2.2013 informed the petitioner that as per instructions from the Municipal Commissioner vide orders dated 29.1.2013 and 11.2.2013, no fresh work orders will be issued to the petitioner under the contract for improvement of Sewerage Network, Zone-VI, awarded to the petitioner under SCR No.992 dated 12.10.2010 and that the petitioner shall have to complete the ongoing works as per the list attached at the earliest. Thereafter, the MMC issued a Circular dated 16.3.2013, directing the various departments of the MMC not to issue any work order to 17 contractors, which includes the petitioner herein, till further orders. 8. The petition, accordingly, take exception to the letter dated 14.2.2013 and circular dated 16.3.2013. 9. Mr. Thereafter, the MMC issued a Circular dated 16.3.2013, directing the various departments of the MMC not to issue any work order to 17 contractors, which includes the petitioner herein, till further orders. 8. The petition, accordingly, take exception to the letter dated 14.2.2013 and circular dated 16.3.2013. 9. Mr. M.M. Vashi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted a compilation of the documents, in support of his contention that the petitioner was not at all a party to any scam as alleged. The documents at serial numbers 1 to 16 (pages 1 to 32) are No Objection Certificates issued by the Executive Engineer (Civil) S.O for release of payments to the petitioner. The remaining documents (pages 33 to 84) are the extracts from the measurement book/bills for the CWC works, again countersigned by the officials of the MMC. On this basis, Mr. Vashi urged that the allegations in the show cause notice were completely baseless and uncalled for. He submitted that there was no warrant to either withhold payments for works already executed or in any case to blacklist the petitioner for further work orders and contracts with the MMC. Referring to the Rules of the MMC governing registration of the contractors, including in particular Rule 9' thereof, Mr. Vashi submitted that the impugned letter/circular has been issued in complete disregard to the detailed procedure prescribed under Rule for de-registration of the contractors, as also in breach of principles of natural justice and fair play. 10. In so far as the order dated 18.7.2013, which is impugned in Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013, is concerned, Mr. Vashi, submitted that there is no proper consideration of the petitioner's case by the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) and the impugned order dated 18.7.2013, merely records the conclusions without any reasons. Mr. Vashi, placed reliance upon a note/report dated 4.7.2011 submitted by the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) and approved by the Director (E.S.&P.), in which the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) upon investigation had specifically exonerated the petitioner and three other contractors by observing that they are not seen as having claimed for more number of works than they had carried out. Mr. Vashi, placed reliance upon a note/report dated 4.7.2011 submitted by the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) and approved by the Director (E.S.&P.), in which the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) upon investigation had specifically exonerated the petitioner and three other contractors by observing that they are not seen as having claimed for more number of works than they had carried out. Mr.Vashi pointed out that the report dated 4.7.2011 came to be endorsed by the Director (E.S. & P) on 30.4.2012 and on the said basis urged that atleast till 30.4.2012, despite inquiries and investigation, the MMC had not been able to discover any adverse material as against the petitioner. In the light of this note/report, Mr. Vashi submitted that the impugned order dated 18.7.2013, which records diametrically opposite conclusion, is clearly unsustainable and the same deserves to be set aside. 11. Mr. Sakhare, the learned senior advocate appearing for the M.M.C. submitted that the MMC was investigating into the scam, which it feared might involve siphoning of MMC finance to the extent of almost 400 crores. Mr. Sakhare submitted that consequent upon the noting dated 4.7.2011 of the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) and endorsement of the Director (E.S. & P) on 30.4.2012, the Additional Municipal Commissioner directed the Dy. Municipal Commissioner to probe deeper in the matter. On 21.5.2012, the Dy. Municipal Commissioner has submitted a report, in which he recorded that atleast ten officials of M.M.C. may have colluded with the contractors in order to facilitate the scam. Mr. Sakhare submitted that even the conduct of the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) and Director (E.S. & P) was recommended for further investigation. This report was approved by the Additional Municipal Commissioner on 22.5.2012 and by the Municipal Commissioner of 23.5.2012. In pursuance thereof, departmental investigations are on. Accordingly, he submitted that the petitioner's reliance upon noting/report dated 4.7.2011 is misplaced. Mr. Sakhare, further submitted that show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before the decision was taken to blacklist him and as such there is substantial compliance with principles of natural justice as also the rules governing deregistration of contractors. 12. Mr. Sakhare invited our attention to the prayers in Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013 and submitted that the said petition is virtually a suit for recovery of money. 12. Mr. Sakhare invited our attention to the prayers in Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013 and submitted that the said petition is virtually a suit for recovery of money. He submitted that the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 came to be validly passed and in any case, the petition involves disputed questions of fact, which may not be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In so far as Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013, challenging the order dated 18.7.2013 is concerned, we agree with Mr. Vashi that the impugned order records conclusions without discussing the reasons on basis of which such conclusions have been drawn. However, no useful purpose will be served by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 upon the said ground. Mr. Sakhare is right in his submission that the entire Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013 is in the nature of a suit seeking recovery of amounts in respect of works allegedly executed by the petitioner for the M.M.C.. The petition, undoubtedly, involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conveniently gone into by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are disputes as to whether or not the petitioner had indeed executed works for which the claim has been made. There are disputes as regards quantum. In these circumstances, even though the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 contains virtually no reasons, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by quashing and setting aside the same. Ultimately, the petitioner shall have to file a suit or resort to any other appropriate remedy for the purposes of recovery of such alleged contractual claim. In the event, such proceedings are adopted, the appropriate authority shall adjudicate upon the same uninfluenced by any observations contained in the impugned order dated 18.7.2013. 14. In so far as Writ Petition No.569 of 2013 is concerned, the challenge is to impugned letter dated 14.2.2013 and a circular dated 16.3.2013, which directs that no fresh work orders be issued to the petitioner under any existing contracts with effect from 1.2.2013 and that the petitioner should complete the on-going works at the earliest and report compliance. 14. In so far as Writ Petition No.569 of 2013 is concerned, the challenge is to impugned letter dated 14.2.2013 and a circular dated 16.3.2013, which directs that no fresh work orders be issued to the petitioner under any existing contracts with effect from 1.2.2013 and that the petitioner should complete the on-going works at the earliest and report compliance. The circular dated 16.3.2013, directs all the departments of the MMC not to issue work orders to 17 contractors, which includes the petitioner herein “till further orders”. The impugned letter and circular, when considered alongwith attendant circumstances suggest that they are in the nature of interim measures or holding operation pending full fledged enquiry in the matter. The impugned letter and circular cannot be regarded as final orders for either blacklisting the petitioner or deregistering him as a contractor. The circular dated 16.3.2013 makes it clear that the directions for not issuing work orders have been made “till further orders”. Further our attention was drawn to notings, which record that a full fledged departmental enquiry has been ordered to examine the involvement of the contractors in intentionally manipulating the claims, records and documents with a view to defraud the M.M.C. The notings make reference to a suo-moto FIR filed by Anti Corruption Bureau, which is also investigating the matter. In the circumstances, although Mr. Vashi is right in his submission that there can be no blacklisting or deregistration without due compliance with principles of natural justice as well as the rules framed by the respondents themselves for registration and deregistration of the contractors, we are of the opinion that the challenges in this regard are premature, since the impugned letter dated 14.2.2013 and circular dated 16.3.2013 cannot be regarded as any final blacklisting or deregistration orders. 15. There is a well settled distinction between interim measures, which are made as a holding operation pending full fledged enquiry and final action either by way of inflicting penalty or orders of blacklisting and deregistration. The impugned letter dated 14.2.2013 and circular dated 16.3.2013 indicate that the respondents, pending final decision on the aspect of blacklisting or deregistration, felt it appropriate that no work orders be issued to the petitioner or that any further tender bids that may be submitted by the petitioner be not considered in the interregnum. The impugned letter dated 14.2.2013 and circular dated 16.3.2013 indicate that the respondents, pending final decision on the aspect of blacklisting or deregistration, felt it appropriate that no work orders be issued to the petitioner or that any further tender bids that may be submitted by the petitioner be not considered in the interregnum. At this stage, there can be no insistence upon rigid compliance with principles of natural justice. If serious irregularities are suspected, then pending appropriate enquiry, it may not be unreasonable to take interim measures by way of holding operation. In the case of Lewis v. Heffer, 1978 (3) ALL E.R.354, Lord Denning drew out the distinction between suspensions which are inflicted by way of punishment and suspensions, which are made as holding operation pending enquiry in the following words: “But they do not apply to suspensions which are made, as a holding operation, pending enquiries. Very often irregularities are disclosed in a Government department or in a business house; and a man may be suspended on full pay pending enquiries. Suspicion may rest on him; and so he is suspended until he is cleared of it. No one, so far as I know, has ever questioned such a suspension on the ground that it could not be done unless he is giving notice of the charge and an opportunity of defending himself and so forth. The suspension in such a case is merely done by way of good administration. A situation has arisen in which something must be done at once. The work of the department or the office is being affected by rumours and suspicions. The others will not trust the man. In order to get back to proper work, the man is suspended. At that stage the rules of natural justice do not apply, see Furnell v. Whangarei High Schools Board”. 16. The aforesaid observations were cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty Oil Mills V/s. Union of India, 1984(3) SCC 465 , by observing that predecisional natural justice is not usually contemplated when the decision taken are of an interim nature pending investigation or inquiry. 17. Mr. 16. The aforesaid observations were cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty Oil Mills V/s. Union of India, 1984(3) SCC 465 , by observing that predecisional natural justice is not usually contemplated when the decision taken are of an interim nature pending investigation or inquiry. 17. Mr. Sakhare appearing for the respondents invited our attention to tender notices issued by the MMC, which invariably contain a condition that if any enquiry against registered tenderer is initiated/pending then e-tender of that tenderer will be treated as non-responsive in pursuance of such a condition. In the present case, the petitioner has been intimated that some of the tenders submitted by him have been treated as nonresponsive in pursuance of such conditions in the notice inviting tenders. The petitioner, atleast in these petitions has not challenged such conditions in the notices inviting tenders or any intimation informing him that his tenders have been treated as nonresponsive. The petitioner has also substantially proceeded on the basis that the impugned letter/circular is more in the nature of an interim measure made as a holding operation pending enquiry and investigation. 18. This, however, does not mean that the effect of interim measures made as holding operation pending full fledged investigation can continue to operate for an uncertain or indefinite period. Nor can they operate for an unreasonably long period of time. Under the guise of such order/circular, the MMC cannot, for an indefinite period refuse to place any work orders upon the petitioner or decline consideration of the petitioner's tender bids. The respondents are duty bound to complete enquiry/investigation within a reasonable period. Such enquiry/investigation has to be conducted consistent with principles of natural justice and fair play and upon complying with the rules framed by the respondents themselves in the matter of registration and deregistration of the contractors. Only upon such a premise, we propose not to interfere with the impugned letter dated 14.2.2013 and circular dated 16.3.2013. Mr. Sakhare submitted that the enquiry/investigation in accordance with rules for registration/deregistration of the contractors can be completed within a period of eight weeks. In our opinion, this is a reasonable period, within which the respondents can be directed to complete the enquiry/investigation, which shall have to be in accordance with rules framed by the respondents themselves in this regard. 19. Sakhare submitted that the enquiry/investigation in accordance with rules for registration/deregistration of the contractors can be completed within a period of eight weeks. In our opinion, this is a reasonable period, within which the respondents can be directed to complete the enquiry/investigation, which shall have to be in accordance with rules framed by the respondents themselves in this regard. 19. During the period of eight weeks as aforesaid, although we do not wish to direct the respondents to issue any work orders to the petitioner in respect of existing contracts, nevertheless we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the petitioner must be permitted by the respondents to take part in the tender processes. The tenders that may be submitted by the petitioner may be processed upon their own merits uninfluenced by either the impugned letter dated 14.2.2013, circular dated 16.3.2013 or any term in the notice inviting the tenders, which requires such tenders be treated as non-responsive. However, in case the respondents determine that the petitioner's bid is the most competitive, even then, the respondents shall not be obliged to award contracts or issue work orders to the petitioner until the outcome of enquiry/investigation as aforesaid. In the event, the petitioner is ultimately exonerated, the respondents are at liberty to award contracts/issue work orders to the petitioner even in respect of tenders issued prior to such order. 20. The respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice or supplementary show cause notice to the petitioner, in case they so desire. Similarly, the petitioner is at liberty to produce further and additional materials/documents as and by way of response. The enquiry/investigation shall be carried out in accordance with rules framed by the respondents themselves for registration and deregistration of contractors, which embody the principles of natural justice and fair play. The petitioner shall cooperate in the process, so that the respondents are able to complete the enquiry/investigation within a period of eight weeks from the date of issuance of this order. 21. In the circumstances, Rule is discharged in Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013, reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in respect of his alleged monetary claims. 21. In the circumstances, Rule is discharged in Writ Petition (L) No.1836 of 2013, reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in respect of his alleged monetary claims. In the event, such proceedings are adopted by the petitioner, the same shall be decided in accordance with law and as per their own merits uninfluenced by any observations that may be contained in the impugned order dated 18.7.2013. 22. In so far as Writ Petition No.569 of 2013 is concerned, it is declared that the impugned letter dated 14.2.2013 and circular dated 16.3.2013 neither blacklist, nor deregister the petitioner as contractor and that the same are only by way of interim measures made as holding operation pending enquiry/investigation. The respondents are directed to complete the enquiry/investigation in accordance with the rules framed by the respondents for registration/deregistration of contractors and take a final decision, within a period of eight weeks from today. The decision so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to take part in the tender processes and to consider any bids that may be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and upon their own merits. However, the respondents shall not be obliged to issue any contracts/work orders to the petitioner until completion of the enquiry/investigation. For a period of eight weeks the respondents shall be entitled to award works to other contractors even if the petitioner's bid is the lowest, if by that time the proceedings are not over. If the petitioner is exonerated, the respondents are at liberty to award contracts/work orders to the petitioner, even in respect of tenders floated in the meantime. Accordingly, Rule in Writ Petition No. 569 of 2013 is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.