1. Besides other firms/companies, Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (for short KELTRON) responded to the Tender Notice issued by respondents, whereunder bids in sealed cover were invited for supply of items in part II of the RFP in the NIT. The subject matter of the NIT was procurement of Long Range Illuminating System (IR BASED) under Major Head 2076, Minor Head 110 (c) QTY 73 Nos out of Army CDR's SPL financial powers during the final year 2011-2012. The KELTRON authorized the petitioners to act as their representatives during the process of evaluation of their bids. 2. Show cause notice was issued to KELTRON as also to the petitioners. The show cause notice issued to the petitioners is dated 14th February, 2012, whereas show cause notice issued to the KELTRON is dated 17th January, 2012. In the show cause notice, it was alleged that on 2nd December, 2011, during the Technical Evaluation of samples of Long Rang Illuminating System (IR Based) by the Technical Evaluation Committee at 47 AD Regt. Location, two representatives of the petitioner-company i.e. Mr. Kuldeep Sahdev and Mr. Yogeswar Sahdev allegedly opened the locked box containing the samples for the Technical Evaluation and inserted an additional sample, which act was allegedly observed by the members of Technical Evaluation Committee and representatives of other firms whose samples were also to be technically evaluated. It was alleged that this misconduct on the part of petitioners has been viewed seriously by the competent authority. It was also stated in the show cause notice that the competent authority was of the opinion that business dealings with the petitioner-firm be henceforth banned. The petitioners were afforded opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice. 3. The petitioners submitted reply dated 29th February, 2012 to the show cause notice, wherein they explained their position. The allegations made in the show cause notice were denied. It was also stated in the reply to show cause notice as to how Mr. Yogeshwar Sahdev, who was one of the representatives of the KELTRON, made personal visit to the KELTRON Head Office on 30th January, 2012 and explained the position to the authorities of KELTRON. It was also stated in the reply to show cause notice that it is the KELTRON who has responded to the NIT and not the petitioner-company viz. Yogeshwar Sahdev, who was one of the representatives of the KELTRON, made personal visit to the KELTRON Head Office on 30th January, 2012 and explained the position to the authorities of KELTRON. It was also stated in the reply to show cause notice that it is the KELTRON who has responded to the NIT and not the petitioner-company viz. S.D.S. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. After explaining their position and controverting the allegations of misconduct, the petitioners requested for dropping of proceedings. The respondents issued impugned communications (Annexures Q-1 & Q2) dated 16th April, 2012, whereunder the petitioners were debarred from further participating in any tender/contract as authorized representatives/manufacturers. It is these communications, which are called in question in this petition. 4. Respondents have filed reply affidavit. 5. The parties have placed huge material on the writ record in support of rival contentions. 6. Mr. Shaheen, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners were not involved in the alleged activity/misconduct, but still they have been debarred from participating in any Tender/contract as authorized representatives/manufacturers. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners have been, thus, prevented from having business dealings with the respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the Rule, which has been relied upon called Rule 3.5.1 of Defence Procurement Manual 2009, is not applicable to the petitioner-company. Learned counsel submitted that M/s KELTRON, who responded to the NIT has also explained its position to the respondents. Learned counsel submitted that it cannot be conceived that a private person would walk into defense premises with any material. Learned counsel submitted that in order to benefit some other companies, impugned communications have been issued. Learned counsel in support of his contention also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 266 and submitted that the writ petition be allowed. 7. Mr. Makroo, learned ASGI, vehemently argued that writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, disputed questions of fact are involved. Learned counsel also referred to some documents placed on record alongwith reply affidavit and submitted that there is literally admission on the part of petitioners in respect of alleged misconduct committed by them. Learned counsel referred to series of documents to indicate that misconduct has been committed and prayed that the Court may take a view in accordance with material placed on record. Learned counsel referred to series of documents to indicate that misconduct has been committed and prayed that the Court may take a view in accordance with material placed on record. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon (2012) 2 SCC 542 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The allegations against the petitioners are very serious and if, found to be correct, the petitioners need to be proceeded against in accordance with law. In the show cause notice allegation was made which is denied by the petitioners. In order to come to a just and lawful conclusion, it was necessary for the competent authority to either embark upon a limited enquiry or at least to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before issuing impugned communication. Perusal of show cause notice, more particularly 7th line of the show cause notice viz. `This misconduct on the part of your representatives has been viewed seriously by the competent authority who is of the opinion that business dealing with your firm be henceforth banned' would, prima-facie, show that before giving opportunity of filing the reply to show cause notice, the competent authority had already formulated an opinion that business dealing with the petitioner-firm has to be henceforth banned. The mind of the competent authority is revealed in the show cause notice itself. Seeking reply to the show cause notice, in these circumstances, was only a formality, as prima-facie decision to stop the business dealings with the petitioner-firm was already taken by the authority. 9. Right to carry on trade/business is one of the fundamental rights of a person guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. This right, however, can be regulated and it is not absolute one. The respondents have, admittedly, not afforded opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioners to enable them to explain their position. 10. This Court cannot look into documents placed on writ record by the parties in support of rival contentions. It is for the competent authority to consider these documents in the first instance and take a view, which, a reasonable person is expected to take in a particular fact situation. In the impugned communication, no reference is made to the documents, which has adversely affected the right to carry on trade and business of the petitioners. It is for the competent authority to consider these documents in the first instance and take a view, which, a reasonable person is expected to take in a particular fact situation. In the impugned communication, no reference is made to the documents, which has adversely affected the right to carry on trade and business of the petitioners. The judgments cited at bar by learned counsel for the respondent provide that questions of fact have to be considered by the appropriate authority. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appropriate authority was seized of the matter and on same set of facts, writ petition cannot be filed. This decision in the facts of this case advances the cause of petitioners. 11. For the above stated reasons this writ petition alongwith connected CMP(s) is disposed of in the following manner:- The respondents, more particularly respondent no. 2 will reconsider the whole issue afresh. Respondent no. 2 will give post decisional hearing to the petitioners. The said respondent, besides considering documents, which may be produced by the petitioners shall also give them oral hearing. The respondent no. 2 will be at liberty to pass fresh orders which may result either in cancelling the impugned order or modifying or even maintaining the same. The respondent no. 2 to consider and take decision within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served. Till the decision is taken, the impugned commissions shall not be given effect to. 12. Disposed of in the above terms.